Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

08 Jun 2016


See also: IRC log


frans, nicky, ByronConNZ, eparsons, billroberts, kerry, ClausStadler, roba, ahaller2, jonblower, BartvanLeeuwen, AndreaPerego, jtandy, joshli, phila
Rachel, Lars, Simon, Linda, Matt, payam, Scott


<kerry> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 08 June 2016

<ClausStadler> hi, what's this call's webex password?


<kerry> scribe: robatkinson

<kerry> *

<kerry> scribeNick; roba

<kerry> approve minutes http://www.w3.org/2016/05/25-sdw-minutes.html

<eparsons> +1

<kerry> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<ByronCinNZ> +1

<billroberts> +1

<frans> +1

<ClausStadler> +0

RESOLUTION: approved minutes

patent call..

<kerry> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call patent call

ISSUE-18 model reuse and ISSUE-19 Multiple types of coverage and Related actions (ACTION-114 and ACTION-115)

<kerry> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/18

<frans> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#ModelReuse

frans references discussion on list - asks if resolution

billroberts - not resolved - passed back to plenary

kerry - reports coverage consensus not a requirement - a good practice

<kerry> Propose: ISSUE-18 be resolved by removing it as a Requirement from UCR

<billroberts> +1


<jtandy> +1

<frans> +1

<eparsons> +1

<ClausStadler> +1

<ChrisLittle> +1

<ByronCinNZ> +1

RESOLUTION: ISSUE-18 be resolved by removing it as a Requirement from UCR

<kerry> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/19 ISSUE 19

<frans> Issue 19 is about this requirement: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#MultipleTypesOfCoverage

frans: requirement is not clear - ask bill for report from coverage sub-group

<phila> issue-19?

<trackbot> issue-19 -- Multiple types of coverage requirement -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/19

billroberts: agreed we should not try to be comprehensive - concentrate on common cases
... regular gridded coverages as the most common type
... not sure how this addresses requirement in UCR
... prioritise simplicity over completeness

<frans> Current requirement text: ¨It should be possible to represent many different types of coverage. For instance, to classify coverage data by grid complexity: GridCoverage (GML 3.2.1), RectifiedGridCoverage, ReferenceableGridCoverage, etc.¨

<kerry> roba: part of discussion was that if we were to focus on a common case we do not want to close of capability to allow description of more general cases e.g. point cloud where gridded may be a degenerate case

<kerry> ...some middle ground between all types and only simple ones.

<kerry> ...leave some room for describing more complex cases without interfering with simple cases

<phila> close issue-18

<trackbot> Closed issue-18.

jtandy: interested in environmental data - important not to fall over ourselves achiveing simple grids - lots of other coverages - timeseries and profiles

,,, not trying to be comprehensive is appropriate - but at least one example of a non-grid coverage

<phila> chair: kerry

jonblower: what does it mean to support different types of cov: RDF encoding or conceptual model?

<frans> ys, that is the question: what is meant?

frans: that is the question - UCR can be interpreted either way,

jonblower: endorses jtandy suggestion

billroberts: agrees extensible but not a concrete implementation for all, grid + 1 other at least to be elucidated

<jtandy> "support for multiple coverages" simply means that we cannot _assume_ a [2d] raster type coverage ... which means we need to be able identify what type of coverage is being encoded so that software knows how to behave etc.

<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to suggest that "support for multiple coverages" simply means that we cannot _assume_ a [2d] raster type coverage

billroberts: coverage WG members invited to suggest other type

kerry: we do have UC...

<frans> The question which coverage types should be supported is not the same as the question how the requirement should be understood

jtandy: makes proposal

<jtandy> +1 to jonblower about gridded coverage and timeseries (at single point) as priority coverage types to examine

.jonblower: pointclouds most complex, suggests timeseries as priority

<ChrisLittle> +1

<Kerry_> which means we need to be able identify what type of coverage is being encoded so that software knows how to behave etc.

<jtandy> +1


<frans> +1

<eparsons> +1

<Kerry_> +1

<billroberts> +1

<ChrisLittle> +1

<RaulGarciaCastro> +1

<ClausStadler> +1

<frans> This effectively resolves the issue, I think

<jtandy> ... and that we will prioritise gridded coverage and timeseries in the examples

<jtandy> I think that's a comment for the editors

<frans> +1 to bill

<jonblower> +1 to bill

RESOLUTION: reword issue 19 to match "to be able identify what type of coverage is being encoded "

<Kerry_> action-114?

<trackbot> action-114 -- Manolis Koubarakis to Resolve UCR ISSUE-18 -- due 2015-03-01 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/114

<scribe> ACTION: frans to reword Issue 19 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/08-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-177 - Reword issue 19 [on Frans Knibbe - due 2016-06-15].

<Kerry_> close action-114

<trackbot> Closed action-114.

<Kerry_> action-115?

<trackbot> action-115 -- Manolis Koubarakis to Resolve UCR ISSUE-19 -- due 2016-03-01 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/115

<Kerry_> close action-115

<trackbot> Closed action-115.

<eparsons> close issue-19

<trackbot> Closed issue-19.

ISSUE-32 Independence of reference systems

<phila> issue-32?

<trackbot> issue-32 -- Clarification required on requirement about Independence on reference systems -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/32

frans: possible duplicate requirement identified - due to multiple teams working in parallel

<Kerry_> +1

<frans> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#IndependenceOnReferenceSystems

<frans> ttp://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#NonGeographicReferenceSystem


<Kerry_> +1

<eparsons> +1

<ChrisLittle> +1

<jtandy> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1

<ByronCinNZ> +1


RESOLUTION: merge requirements

<Kerry_> close issue-32

<trackbot> Closed issue-32.

<scribe> ACTION: frans: update UCR [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/08-sdw-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-178 - Update ucr [on Frans Knibbe - due 2016-06-15].

<jtandy> /me - don't we need to have a "proposed" before we "resolve"?

F2F meeting plan

kerry: getting close to critcal timing
... deliverables - SSN in FPWD, UCR needs closing off soon, issues waiting on other deliverables
... time - work done, no meeting - schedule FPWD soon

<jonblower> sorry, got to leave now. bye all

kerry: coverage - a way off

<jtandy> just FPWD

kerry: BP - at FPWD - "deserves another release"
... should publish updates before F2F meeting

<jtandy> [sorry - feeling dumb ... are we talking about OGC TC dublin or W3C TPAC lisbon?]

kerry: at F2F SSN memebers present, Time not so..

<jtandy> ah!

<jtandy> then I can agree to another release :-)

kerry: not official F2F at dublin, josh confirms

<Kerry_> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings#TPAC_2015.2C_Lisbon

<phila> Our meeting at TPAC is 19-20 Sept

<joshli> Still and issue, unfortunately, that the TPAC overlaps the OGC meeting in Orlando.

kerry: what to do - close off at F2F ?

eparsons: as evil co-chair would like to see iterations of docs before TPAC - use TPAC to revise

<frans> UCR can have another iteration too - provided the remaining issues get enough group attention

jtandy: BP iteration by end July - will check with co-editors - work not yet reflected. Payam with more time, Linda also planning to make time

BartvanLeeuwen: has meeting of related project at same time - does not expect feedback by then

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to drill a little into 'End of July'

BartvanLeeuwen: suspects early September better for attention than July

phila: asks for "before editors go on holiday to allow time to review" - Sept is a long time for an update.
... takes time for group to review and consider before formal publication

<eparsons> And I thought I was evil :-)

<ChrisLittle> * we know you are Ed.

<billroberts> So for the record, aiming for the coverage workgroup to publish a FPWD soon after TPAC, so have a draft ready for discussion/finalisation at the TPAC F2F

<ChrisLittle> Time scale for Time noted.

phila: coverages after TPAC, SSN after TPAC - timings to be put to W3C mgment in next few days to allow extension to June 2017

ChrisLittle: timescale for time deliverable looks feasible - based on Simon's doc - not tied too closely to ISO
... published by endo of July, Chris/Simon not at F2F

<phila> roba: Some of us, including Chris, will be together on Friday 24th at the TC in Dublin. I'll be looking at some QB descriptions of these coverage use cases

<phila> ... Hope to have something to feed in - talk to us in Dublin.

<billroberts> great, thanks Rob. Sorry, I can't make it to that Dublin meeting

<phila> ChrisLittle: Talked about Mark Hedley's work on WKT for non-Gregorian times

<phila> roba: Yep. Spoke to him today

thanks phil

UCR completion

kerry: asks frans: re UCR timing, needs

<ChrisLittle> Sorry folks, I have to leave now. Bye

<ChrisLittle> Bye

frans: asks group to look at open issues

<jtandy> [that's going to be difficult for BP editors as we must focus on the next release of BP]

<phila> issue-38?

<trackbot> issue-38 -- decide if and how to add the proposed use case -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/38

frans: next iteration well before TPAC

andreaperego: INSPIRE conference after TPAC - opportunity to show work

<Kerry_> +1

andreaperego: deadline on Friday - abstract only needed - asks for interest, attending?

<Kerry_> +0

<billroberts> -1

<phila> +0 (no budget :-( )

<BartvanLeeuwen> -1

<frans> I do hope SDDWG will get lots of exposure at the INSPIRE conference

<jtandy> probably -1

<AndreaPerego> :(

<joshli> joshli -- expect to put a spatial ontology proposal (update of GeoSPARQL) on WebProtege tomorrow.

<ByronCinNZ> Maybe +.5

<eparsons> +0.5


<RaulGarciaCastro> -1

<frans> Great news josh!

<BartvanLeeuwen> thx bye

<billroberts> thanks, bye

<AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!

<RaulGarciaCastro> Bye!

<eparsons> thanks bye

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: frans to reword Issue 19 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/08-sdw-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: frans: update UCR [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/08-sdw-minutes.html#action02]

Summary of Resolutions

  1. approved minutes
  2. ISSUE-18 be resolved by removing it as a Requirement from UCR
  3. reword issue 19 to match "to be able identify what type of coverage is being encoded "
  4. merge requirements
[End of minutes]