12:56:40 RRSAgent has joined #sdw 12:56:40 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/08/17-sdw-irc 12:56:42 RRSAgent, make logs world 12:56:42 Zakim has joined #sdw 12:56:44 Zakim, this will be SDW 12:56:44 ok, trackbot 12:56:45 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference 12:56:45 Date: 17 August 2016 12:57:01 chair: kerry 12:57:07 present+ kerry 12:57:17 rrsagent, make logs public 12:58:08 Linda has joined #sdw 12:58:14 regrets: Rachel, Lars, SimonCox, Andrea Perego 12:58:34 ahaller2 has joined #sdw 12:59:08 roba has joined #sdw 12:59:18 agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160817 12:59:26 billroberts has joined #sdw 13:00:40 frans has joined #sdw 13:01:21 present+ phila 13:01:29 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:01:34 ScottSimmons has joined #sdw 13:01:35 present+ 13:02:14 present+ ahaller2 13:02:18 present+ frans 13:02:37 present+ ScottSimmons 13:03:04 regrets+ Rachel, Lars, SimonCox, AndreaP 13:03:12 present+ Linda 13:04:03 joshlieberman has joined #sdw 13:04:09 present+ billroberts 13:04:20 scribe: billroberts 13:04:33 scribenick: billroberts 13:05:07 topic: approve minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/08/03-sdw-minutes.html 13:05:10 MattPerry has joined #sdw 13:05:20 PROPOSED:approve minutes of last meeting 13:05:23 present+ MattPerry 13:05:35 +1 13:05:38 +1 13:05:45 +1 13:05:48 +1 13:05:50 +1 13:05:59 +1 13:06:02 resolved: approve minutes of last meeting 13:06:14 +1 13:06:32 topic: Coverage update 13:06:49 patent call: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call 13:07:26 billroberts: work on coverage has focused on 2 strands 13:07:48 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/08/17-sdw-minutes.html phila 13:07:54 ...1 is covjson from u reading and a draft specification will be given more formal status. 13:08:00 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Cross_reference_of_UCR_to_CovJSON_spec 13:08:01 ClausStadler has joined #sdw 13:08:28 ...i have run thru ucs and xref with covjson and wrriten some note (see above) and concluded a pretty good match 13:08:56 Bill, did you use the latest editors draft of the UR to cross-reference? 13:08:58 ... a missing bit has some ideas being developed now by jon and mail re fragment identifiers and "extracts" with metadata atttached 13:09:18 present+ ClausStadler 13:09:47 .... discussion at last meeting was whetherwe should make it a rec/standard or a not/discussion odc. Issue is resources. 13:10:05 .... esp implementations -- will be discussed with phil 13:10:16 q? 13:10:31 s/the UR/the UCR/ 13:10:40 ...did i use laterst ucr draft ? yes, but it might have moved since 13:11:08 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Beginnings_of_a_W3C_note 13:11:13 ....2 other strand is rdf datacube approach.... dmitry has put together beginnings of what could be a "note" 13:11:14 q+ 13:11:48 .... roba also doing early stage work on soemthing called qbfor st (space and time dimensions). 13:11:52 q+ 13:12:02 .... will see whther these should/could be combined to a note 13:12:16 .. might say how rdf db should be used 13:12:43 .... i will help too 13:12:51 q+ 13:12:55 ...objective to have reasonable drafts 13:13:04 ack me 13:13:04 ... by tpac meeting 13:13:06 q+ 13:14:03 phila: thanks for a lot of work here --- ok for 2 docs provinding different ways of doing a similar thing .... sounls like maybe both docs should be notes/discussion paper 13:14:39 .... may not be a formal standards ---a little premature... notes/discussion maybe over standard/recs 13:14:51 ack l 13:14:52 billroberts: happy with that -- sounds right to me too 13:15:13 linda: should there be something about cov in BP? 13:15:51 billroberts: yes, seems appropriate. we can put some work into this. already a relevant narrative there. 13:16:08 ....we could have a specific bp around this topic. 13:16:13 q+ 13:16:29 ....the new things are quite new so would they be "best practice"? 13:16:32 q? 13:17:12 linda: could be just careful wording e.g "possible approach" 13:17:30 ack roba 13:18:12 roba: plea for help and clarification -- how to take existing bp to definitions that can be reused... 13:19:17 ... i have action to write a note about general problem of metadata... general comment to review vocablaries and pointing to ogc vocabs where they should be held 13:21:06 ... are we lookjing at 2 different approaches ... they are not competing more of a bridge with link to josh's vocab work, to fit into best practice. 13:21:32 ... is there a middle glue -- but i need some help here. 13:22:00 ack joshlieberman 13:23:08 joshlieberman: has been following the coverages work with interest. There are several approaches, which have a lot in common: XML from OGC, RDF, JSON. 13:23:39 ...these have a connection to existing models and definitions. Coverage is a Feature, elements within that are also potentially Features. 13:24:12 ...subsets/slices/bounding areas are also Features. The different appraoches are essentially about how you define the index from those features to the corresponding range. 13:24:43 ...the Best Practice could focus on those higher level concepts, plus practical aspects of how to represent those 13:25:20 ack next 13:25:24 ...this would give the basis for converting between those approaches. Different ones have strenghts for different applications 13:25:58 Frans: is wondering about how coverages relate to the spatial ontology work, partly answered by Josh's recent comment 13:26:05 ...where will the concept of 'Coverage' be defined? 13:27:03 joshlieberman: [sound lost for a few seconds] has discussed with Rob about defining key concepts of the coverage dimensions/index 13:27:13 I lost Josh´s voice for a while 13:27:48 joshlieberman: Coverage concept is well defined in existing OGC documents but we should summarise it in the BP for ease of access 13:27:57 frans: will it be defined in an RDF ontology? 13:28:21 joshlieberman: the Data Cube Note could include extensions to the ontology 13:28:55 joshlieberman: would like to write a charter for OGC to extend GeoSPARQL to reflect his current research work 13:29:21 ...so thinking about what could go into the BP while a possibly long-running consideration of this takes place at OGC 13:29:24 topic: Consolidating (merging) best practices, e.g. the ones on identifiers 13:29:47 Josh, I would love to help with the spatial ontology but I am occupied with the UC&R now. 13:30:06 Linda: hard at work on the BP. Jeremy working on the narrative, Linda working on restructuring the BP, Payam is working on CRS 13:30:11 q? 13:30:20 ...would like to talk about consolidating and merging of BPs 13:30:48 ...have created a new section to hold a merged section around best practices for identifiers. Previously there were 5 or so 13:31:10 http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-identifiers 13:31:59 Linda: now only one BP in this section. The Possible Approach section includes 3 main points: reuse identifiers when you can; when none exist, create your own; provide stable identifiers for things that change over time 13:32:07 +1 to the merge 13:32:16 +1 13:32:21 Less is more! 13:32:29 Linda: question for the working group - is this a good approach? There will be fewer best practices but each will be longer 13:32:29 +1 13:32:57 Linda: please look at the document over the next few days and give feedback on this approach 13:33:10 ...but seeing the good initial support, will carry on in this way for now 13:33:12 i had a look - and its good to improive connection between the issues anyway - maybe some sort of decision tree emerges 13:33:12 q? 13:33:14 q+ 13:33:39 Linda: has already incorporated some comments from Simon 13:33:41 Should identifiers be part of a system for the features of interest? 13:33:41 ack joshlieberman 13:34:16 joshlieberman: making identifiers part of a system, where the features are part of the system? 13:34:37 ...for example corresponding to paths in a taxonomy 13:34:47 Linda: no answer right now, will have to think about it 13:35:00 topic: Fix a date for document freeze prior to TPAC (F2F) vote 13:35:10 +1 for special case where a set of features provide a set of identifiers - highlights the separation of feature model as a data structure implementation and object identity :-) 13:35:11 kerry: for rest of meeting, concentrate on remaining issues in the UCR doc 13:36:01 kerry: Frans had asked what state are we aiming to get UCR in by TPAC. Can we get it to 'final call' status? 13:36:29 phila: as it is a Note, there is no concept of a Final Call or final edition. It just becomes whatever you publish last. 13:36:49 kerry: so should it be another Public Working Draft? and so does it need a vote 13:37:21 phila: it's currently published as a Note, so the next version just becomes another version of that Note. There is no change in status associated with a new version 13:37:46 -> https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/NOTE-sdw-ucr-20151217/ UCR 13:37:57 frans: understood 13:38:31 frans: at some point we want a frozen version for soliciting public comments and for discussing at TPAC. So how long before TPAC should we freeze documents to allow that 13:38:45 phila: no formal requirement, but something like a week before works well in practice 13:39:06 ...are members of the group happy that they have had sufficient time to read it and prepare 13:39:23 frans: is happy with freezing a week before TPAC 13:39:34 frans: do we want a public call for comments at that moment? 13:40:04 ...so we should do that a week before TPAC too 13:40:27 ...it would be nice to receive some public comments before TPAC so maybe seeking comments earlier would be better 13:40:39 phila: notes only 5 weeks to TPAC 13:41:21 kerry: let's freeze a week before TPAC and respond to any notable public comments that we receive 13:41:31 topic: Editors of deliverables checking requirements in UCR (this thread) 13:41:54 kerry: Frans would like to check the status of other deliverables and how they relate to UCR 13:42:09 the email thread is here: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Jun/0114.html 13:42:17 Frans: has asked editors of other deliverables to see if they are aware of the latest UCR and any suggests for changes 13:42:44 ...not many changes required. Their working requirements are well aligned with current status of UCR 13:42:49 ...but hasn't heard yet from SSN group 13:43:40 kerry: I brought this up at a SSN meeting but no significant response, so will bring it up again at the next SSN meeting in 2 weeks and Kerry will look at it herself. So Frans can assume it's probably ok but notes the need to take a look 13:44:19 frans: expects each deliverable to include an explanation of how it meets the requirements, or why it was not possible to meet them 13:44:26 q+ 13:44:34 ...so important to have the links from requirements to deliverable 13:44:51 kerry: good idea, but not sure it is feasible for SSN, at least not within 5 weeks 13:45:52 frans: was thinking of a simple checklist or table of requirements and a 'yes' or 'no' whether it was met 13:46:24 ...maybe it doesn't need to eb part of a formal deliverable, but just a record on the wiki to show that the deliverable was tested against hte requirements 13:46:35 kerry: doing it on the wiki might be possible in that time 13:46:53 ...but as Phil said, it only has to be final when the working group finishes, so could perhaps be revised later. 13:47:33 phila: it's possible that another group could pick up aspects of the work. That's what happened with the Time ontology. Our group has extended something that was first produced as a Note 10 yaers ago 13:47:59 frans: at least we should make sure that all the requirements from the use case analysis are somehow addressed 13:48:06 kerry: can agree to do that on the wiki 13:48:38 frans: should the BP document have explicit links to UCR? 13:48:53 kerry: yes, we have something on that in the 'evidence' sections that have links into the UCR doc 13:49:20 issue: ssn group needs to produce a wiki document that realtes to requirements met or not from UCR 13:49:20 Created ISSUE-73 - Ssn group needs to produce a wiki document that realtes to requirements met or not from ucr. Please complete additional details at . 13:49:35 frans: that makes it easier to check whether any requirements have been overlooked, especially since some have been added recently 13:50:12 frans: ok not to meet requirements in some cases, but that should come with a note on why that requirement could not be met 13:50:45 Linda: but we won't be sure whether all requirements are met until the end of the work on the other deliverables 13:51:14 phila: that should probably go into the other deliverables - a list of requirements and whether/how they are met, so not in the UCR doc 13:51:24 topic: Remaining outstanding issues and actions summary 13:51:59 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/products/1 13:52:03 sorry - must leave a little early due to another meeting that requires brief travel. 13:52:40 frans: Action 111 will be addressed in next SSN teleconference https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/111 13:52:56 frans: there is a new requirement on coordinate transformations 13:53:13 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/31 13:53:22 +1 on adding requirement for issue-70 13:53:29 frans: issue 31 has been overlooked until recently 13:54:13 frans: Linda had remarked that this might be out of scope. Frans will create a new thread on the subject to seek opinions. Is it a spatial data question, or a more general data issue 13:54:46 frans: there are no red issues any more, so should be ready with next version in 2 weeks 13:55:11 kerry: congratulates Frans 13:55:42 topic: how should geosparql be handled? 13:56:28 joshlieberman: the spatial ontology is not in a deliverable of this working group, but spatial data practices that refer to that ontology are in scope 13:56:39 The spatial ontology is mentioned as a subdeliverable of the BP deliverable 13:56:59 ...the BP could refer to an OGC specification for that, but there is a mismatch in time, as a new OGC spec will take a long time 13:57:09 q? 13:57:15 ...so should there be another SDW document to describe that ontology 13:57:23 q+ 13:57:36 ack kerry 13:57:40 ack frans 13:58:29 frans: perhaps we can indicate in BP that there is a need for a spatial ontology and that the new ontology in development is a promising option for the future - assuming that the ontology in development has a landing page or similar that we can link to 13:58:59 q+ 13:59:09 joshlieberman: yes it's currently at geosemweb.org 13:59:20 +1 to having a note/discussion paper and reference that in BP 13:59:38 ...a W3 note or OGC discussion paper reflect work at similar levels of maturity - not quite ready to become a standard 13:59:48 q+ 14:00:09 kerry: would feel more comfortable if is referenced in the BP document, even if future work - just to avoid creating additional documents 14:00:21 q? 14:00:26 q+ 14:00:27 ack kerry 14:00:28 ack roba 14:01:07 roba: wouldn't disagree. If we're looking for a way to reference spatial concepts, something like GeoSPARQL might be too complicated and not a good fit. So a need for an updated ontology is obvious 14:01:28 http://geosemweb.org/sdwgeo goes to a ttl file right now. 14:01:31 q? 14:01:40 ...am agnostic about where we document it, but we definitely need a practical solution to the problem, which could involve referring to the concepts from geosparql 14:02:04 q? 14:02:29 mature state would be a BP reference to a new GeoSPARQL version, but interim measures are the question. 14:02:40 phila: remember the charter. Help people decide how to do stuff, and guide them. People will tend only to read the main thing and won't follow up all footnotes etc 14:03:04 ...it's up to the group and editors to decide how best to do it 14:03:37 kerry: do you want people to review what you have done more closely? Propose what such a note might look like so we could decide what goes into BP? 14:03:55 joshlieberman: the ontology is available at the link above. I'll write a description of it to go with it 14:04:09 phila: who controls geosemweb.org? 14:04:13 joshlieberman: me 14:04:36 phila: we'll need something more permanent if we want to refer to it normatively, eg in SSN or Time ontology, as they are RECs 14:04:43 Proposal: reference GeoSPARQL in BP and indicate location of the draft update. 14:04:52 joshlieberman: so it would be better to have it as an OGC discussion paper 14:05:07 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:05:07 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/08/17-sdw-minutes.html phila 14:05:09 kerry: need to talk more about TPAC plans 14:05:34 kerry: editors, please say how much time you want in the TPAC meeting, so can start putting together an agenda 14:05:51 phila: early-bird registration runs out at end of month, so register quick 14:05:53 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:05:53 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/08/17-sdw-minutes.html phila 14:06:00 Thanks, have a good day or night 14:06:02 bye 14:06:08 joshlieberman has left #sdw 14:06:13 bye 14:06:26 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:06:26 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/08/17-sdw-minutes.html phila 16:07:17 Zakim has left #sdw