See also: IRC log
<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?
ok
<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
<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
+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
<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
+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.
<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
http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#NonGeographicReferenceSystem
<Kerry_> +1
<eparsons> +1
<ChrisLittle> +1
<jtandy> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<BartvanLeeuwen> +1
<ByronCinNZ> +1
+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"?
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
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
+0
<RaulGarciaCastro> -1
<frans> Great news josh!
<BartvanLeeuwen> thx bye
<billroberts> thanks, bye
<AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!
<RaulGarciaCastro> Bye!
<eparsons> thanks bye