Spatial Data on the Web, BP sub group Teleconference

Sorry everyone I will need to stay mostly on mute - at PRG Airport !!

<Payam> is the Webx call open? it asks me to wait...

<Linda> i'm in payam

<jtandy> payam: the webex is 643 407 318

<jtandy> ... should be open

<MattPerry> Hi, could someone please tell me what the webex password is?

<phila> Meeting: SDW BP Sub Group

<scribe> scribe: eparsons

jtandy minutes from some time back...

<Linda> https://www.w3.org/2016/06/15-sdwbp-minutes

jtandy Proposed approve minutes

<jtandy> +1

<Linda> +1

<Nicky> +1

<phila> +0 absent

<ByronCinNZ> +0 absent

Resolved minutes approved

<roba> +1

<Payam> +0

jtandy Patent call

jtandy moves on to body of agenda

jtandy 2 main topics

Options for restructuring the BP document

jtandy BP doc at moment... intro, 30 BP's functionally organised - feedback difficult to follow

jtandy We could follow DWBP structure ? but discuss..

Linda Looked at feedback - not much on structure

<Linda> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-comments/2016Feb/0038.html

Linda Order could be improved link above

linda relationship with DWBP more explicit

<Linda> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-comments/2016Feb/0021.html

Linda Roba feedback - List Daunting !! Not clear what BP to use for any case...

Linda Which BP is relevant for each use case ?

<Linda> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Jan/0040.html

Linda Bill noted overlap between BP's

Linda Bill BP's sometimes repeated...

jtandy Any other issues with current structure ?

jtandy None so moves on...

jtandy Who do we expect to read ?

jtandy Is our doc stand alone ?

jtandy What do we expect people to be able to do ?

<Payam> +q

jtandy as a result of reading the BP ?

<ChrisLittle__> Q

ByronCinNZ Who is a developer - so extension of DWBP

ByronCinNZ read on web so links to other docs easy.. structure should be the same as much as possible

ByronCinNZ Current SDW has things whcih should be in DWBP ?

ByronCinNZ e.g.... Craw-ability

<ChrisLittle__> S/Craw/Crawl/

jtandy Devs target audience - so should be able to implement stuff ?

ByronCinNZ - Yes not all normative but provide a pointer

phila 2 things 1. Extending DWBP great but different community

<phila> LDG conslusion

phila - therefore some translation might be required ? Ref - Report of original workshop "where to pour concrete"

phila Answer "What should I do question - more prescriptive "

<Payam> +1 - agree with Phil

jtandy - Needs to have value over time... can we do this and be prescriptive

phila - Suggestions made is DWBP could be changed - so GeoJOSN may have been replaced in 10 years - allow people to make change at time

Payam +1 to phila - will be standalone - common points e.g. crawing may not actually be similar in the communities

ChrisLittle__ Do we say read DWBP first - people will not... If standalone needs section that points to DWBP and high light where things are different ?

<Payam> ChrisLittle__ has a good suggestion: to list/summarise the DBP and provide links

ChrisLittle__ Very concise summary of DWBP needed

JoshLieberman Struggle a bit Spatial should be specialisation.. however stuff in our community not considered by DWBP

JoshLieberman Follow DWBP when we can often general principles however - SDW needs to be more precise use this specific BP

jtandy Yes think I follow that - extension is a good term for the relationship between them

roba As dev will have be pointed to this doc

roba Consider the commissioner or manager of developer need more prescription - a business view

jtandy Business person needs to know this is relevant to my domain ?

roba Yes but with details for developer

<JoshLieberman> DWBP points at a "data on the web" community. SDWBP points in two directions: the spatial data community and the data on the web community. It needs to draw each one towards the other.

<ChrisLittle__> Suggest at least following DWBP could be 'specialised':1,2,4,7,13,14,15,18,23,28

BartvanLeeuwen Different perspective SDI has solved problems of accessibility but not find-ability

BartvanLeeuwen Semantics of data more than SDI is important and not covered by DWBP

<JoshLieberman> The dw -> sdw perspective can specialize dwbp, but the sd ->sdw perspective needs to express dwbp as specializations of sd.

jtandy SDI is not enough ?

BartvanLeeuwen Craw-able, more semantic content - these are the key points

ChrisLittle__ Worked through BP's and identified ones where there is a spatial specialisation

jtandy I heard doc is mainly for developers, but also need business view

jtandy Point at our one doc - enough to get on with but with pointers to other places - can't assume other docs read

jtandy outcome of reading doc publish SDI to broader web community, or publishing new data - not as generalised as DWBP

<JoshLieberman> sd->sdw bp paradigm: This is how to apply a dwbp to spatial data... but this idea of multiple inheritance from sd and dw is too rigid for useful sdwbp.

jtandy We can ref DWBP and in some cases we need to do you stuff for an implementer we need examples

<ByronCinNZ> +1

jtandy Narrative will allow dev to identify a role and find appropriate BP's and linked details from there

<ChrisLittle__> +1

jtandy New section of examples needed therefore

<JoshLieberman> It's useful to discuss "realizing" rather than "specializing" more general concepts.

jtandy Useful discussion

Linda Need a resolution ?

Linda Need an agreed approach

phila - Doc should be standalone but not repeat content

Linda Yes that helps...

jtandy SDWBP is first entry point - not assumption of prior work

ByronCinNZ strucuure mirrors DWBP helpful for devs

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to caution against numbers

<JoshLieberman> I would like to see SDWBP to have two entry points: 1) for those bringing spatial data to the web and 2) for those making data on the web spatial. 2) might benefit from a closer relationship to the DWBP, but not 1)

phila DWBP is at candidate stage - so looking for examples of implementation - could be that some may need to be removed

phila use names therefore not numbers when referencing

<JoshLieberman> A little surprising that BP's don't have URI's ;>)

BartvanLeeuwen fading in and out on vox

<BartvanLeeuwen> I'll type

<BartvanLeeuwen> Nicky and I prepared a demo for the plenary, but its a bout a proposed BP

<BartvanLeeuwen> should it be in the BP call then ?

jtandy Take at Pleanary call - Agreed say ed

JoshLieberman Agenda item ?

JoshLieberman Update to GeoSPARQL as spatial ontology - feedback useful

JoshLieberman We write OGC charter but need feedback from this group

jtandy Both items add to plenary call

jtandy JoshLieberman 2 entry points good idea

<jtandy> PROPOSAL: The BP doc will be undertsandable as a standalone doc, although it will refer to more detail in other docs

<phila> PROPOSAL: The BP doc will be undertsandable as a first entry point, although it will refer to more detail in other docs

+1

<jtandy> +1

<phila> +1

<ByronCinNZ> +1

<MattPerry> +1

<Linda> +1

<roba_> +1

<JoshLieberman> +1

<ChrisLittle__> +1

RESOLUTION: The BP doc will be undertsandable as a first entry point, although it will refer to more detail in other docs

<phila> PROPOSAL: This document is primarily for developers

+1

<phila> PROPOSAL: This document is primarily for developers, both those coming from a geospatial world and those coming from a Web world

<jtandy> +1

<ByronCinNZ> +1

<ChrisLittle__> +1

<Linda> +1

<phila> +1

<MattPerry> +1

<JoshLieberman> +1

RESOLUTION: This document is primarily for developers, both those coming from a geospatial world and those coming from a Web world

<phila> PROPOSED: Our examples will be necessarily prescriptive

<phila> PROPOSED: Our possible approaches to implementation will be necessarily prescriptive

<JoshLieberman> with regard to vocabulary and format and ...?

<jtandy> +!

<jtandy> +1

<Payam> +1

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1

<Linda> +1

<ByronCinNZ> +1

<JoshLieberman> +1

<MattPerry> +1

<roba_> +1

<ChrisLittle__> +1

RESOLUTION: Our possible approaches to implementation will be necessarily prescriptive

<jtandy> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_consolidation_proposal

jtandy - Second item ..

jtandy Discuss proposal on email - brutal consolidation !!

jtandy - Thanks everyone !!

<BartvanLeeuwen> thx guys

<JoshLieberman> bye+

<BartvanLeeuwen> jtandy: saw my gmail mail ?

thanks everone

<jtandy> bye