Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference -- 27 Jul 2016

<jtandy> billroberts ... are you there?

<eparsons> wow kudo to ByronCinNZ

<scribe> scribe: Linda

approve minutes

<ClausStadler> +0 (holidays)

<jtandy> http://www.w3.org/2016/07/13-sdwbp-minutes

<ClausStadler> +0 (holidays)

<jtandy> +1

<eparsons> +1

<ScottSimmons> +0 out

<MattPerry> +1

<ByronCinNZ> +1

<roba> +1

jtandy: the minutes are approved

patent call

<eparsons> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

jtandy: hearing nothing

BP document status

jtandy: finally some changes visible in BP editor's draft

<jtandy> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/

jtandy: TOC is different, new sections added in front material
... intro has been rewritten, also audience and scope sections,

<scribe> ... new section for explaining diff between spatial things, features and geometry

<scribe> ... new section on linked data (but not necessarily RDF)

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: and new section on why SDI's are not enough.
... we think it now better reflects the thoughs of the WG. Feedback welcome!
... audience now mostly focussed on spatial data publishers, but will add a section reminding them they're not doing it for themselves but for data users.
... (data publishers = webby folk and spatial folk)

<jtandy> proposed: the audience of the of the BP doc is data publishers; whether webby or spatial experts

<jtandy> proposed: the audience of the of the BP doc is data publishers; whether webby or spatial experts - including developers writing tools to help people publish spatial data on the web

<jtandy> +1

<roba> +1

<ScottSimmons> +1

<ClausStadler> +1

<MattPerry> +1

<eparsons> +1

<ByronCinNZ> +1

RESOLUTION: the audience of the of the BP doc is data publishers; whether webby or spatial experts - including developers writing tools to help people publish spatial data on the web

<eparsons> I can scribe

<eparsons> Linda working on chapter that actually contins BP's

<eparsons> Linda reordered to match DWBP doc

<eparsons> Linda e.g starts with metadata, etc...

<eparsons> Linda working through each one, adding examples, matching with DWBP and referencing them

<eparsons> Done for metadata and data quality

<eparsons> jtandy Next steps

<eparsons> ?

<eparsons> Linda Complete all BP's using this process e.g. matching with DWBP - A lot of work however

<eparsons> jtandy Issues that come up will be flagged to the group via the email list

<eparsons> jtandy Thanks for thread contributions so far..

<eparsons> Linda - Comments from Andrea need to chase up - ISO 19115

<eparsons> ByronCinNZ - Will work though ... Metadata publishing is best practice now

<eparsons> jtandy Choosing encoding different to data...

<eparsons> Linda Continue via email thread...

jtandy: I will work on getting the narrative, the flooding scenario, inserted into the document
... on the top of the BP section the narrative will be introduced,
... in each of the BPs themselves there will be examples that come from the narrative,
... appendix will describe the full scenario as a standalone thing

eparsons: some of the BPs might be more important than others, do we want to have ratings, like 1 to 5 stars?

<MattPerry> I agree

roba: DWBP had these icons signalling the areas a BP covers
... also you could order the sections

jtandy: we can use the benefit icons, yes

eparsons: slightly different from what I mean, it's more giving some BPs priority over others

ByronCinNZ: good idea, but with caution. Depending on what you're publishing, this could change priorities/benefits

<jtandy> proposed: we will reuse the "benefit icons" from DWBP to help describe the relative value of each SDW BP

<jtandy> +1

<MattPerry> +1

<eparsons> +1

<ByronCinNZ> +1

roba: can we have extra benefit icons?

(no specific suggestions)

jtandy: yes

Linda: priorities: are these steps?

eparsons: yes, needs discussion, not necessarily less to more difficult, but less to more beneficial.

jtandy: I hope the narrative will help in giving guidance on what to do in a concrete case.

eparsons: yes, probably the easiest way to manage it.
... to get maximum benefit to readers of this document we need to make clear which are the key messages
... URIs, linking, ...

ByronCinNZ: maybe useful to have a matrix at the end matching different data types to bp's important for publishing that type of data.

<ByronCinNZ> ACTION: to create a matrix of datatypes related to best practices [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/27-sdwbp-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Error finding 'to'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.

<ByronCinNZ> ACTION: ByronCinNZ to create a matrix of datatypes related to best practices for inclusion in BP document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/27-sdwbp-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Error finding 'ByronCinNZ'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.

jtandy: schedule: we intend to have a clean editor's draft by beginning of september

<ByronCinNZ> ACTION: Byron Cochrane to create a matrix of datatypes related to best practices for inclusion in BP document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/27-sdwbp-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-189 - Cochrane to create a matrix of datatypes related to best practices for inclusion in bp document [on Byron Cochrane - due 2016-08-03].

jtandy: 7th september
... between then and up to and including TPAC have WG discussion around the new draft;
... also discuss whether we agree that BPs exist in the wild,
... and vote for publication during TPAC or shortly after

BP for choosing the right data format and/or vocabulary

<jtandy> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Jul/0238.html

jtandy: this BP should help people choose the right format and vocabulary, in the form of a decision tree if that will work

roba: BP could be to publish in as many formats as your audience finds useful, but let at least one of them be RDF

jtandy: and RDF might be only SKOS or might beJSON-LD, right

roba: be flexible and deliver multiple formats

jtandy: through content negotiation
... any advice on which serialisation of RDF?

eparsons: maybe going too far to suggest RDF is the end game. Choose data formats that are linkable.
... telling people you must use RDF will put them off

jtandy: what about schema.org in JSON-LD?

eparsons: that gets you somewhere, more accessible than RDF

jtandy: we are asking to provide schema.org in the BP.

roba: endorses eparsons.
... linking capability and being able to annotate types

jtandy: when choosing a format criteria are e.g. dimensionality of the data, CRS other than WGS84,
... toolchain of target community, ...

roba: JSON is popular now

ClausStadler: and YAML

jtandy: the email I linked earlier there are some questions. Please look at these questions and agree if these are the proper ones.
... also supporting multiple formats is a good one.

eparsons: good questions, ask the questions in a closed way (e.g. is there any reason NOT to use WGS84)

jtandy: so always aim towards the simplest approach

Linda: these questions are more about vocabularies than formats. No clear line between what's a format and whats a vocab

jtandy: have to write about that.
... will be in touch with those who have work to do for the flooding scenario narrative!

<eparsons> thx linda

<eparsons> bye all

<jtandy> bye!

<MattPerry> bye

<jtandy> RRSAgent: make minutes

- DRAFT -

Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

27 Jul 2016

Attendees

Contents

approve minutes

patent call

BP document status

BP for choosing the right data format and/or vocabulary

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output