IRC log of sdw on 2016-08-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

12:56:40 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sdw
12:56:40 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/08/17-sdw-irc
12:56:42 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
12:56:42 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #sdw
12:56:44 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SDW
12:56:44 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
12:56:45 [trackbot]
Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
12:56:45 [trackbot]
Date: 17 August 2016
12:57:01 [kerry]
chair: kerry
12:57:07 [kerry]
present+ kerry
12:57:17 [kerry]
rrsagent, make logs public
12:58:08 [Linda]
Linda has joined #sdw
12:58:14 [kerry]
regrets: Rachel, Lars, SimonCox, Andrea Perego
12:58:34 [ahaller2]
ahaller2 has joined #sdw
12:59:08 [roba]
roba has joined #sdw
12:59:18 [kerry]
agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20160817
12:59:26 [billroberts]
billroberts has joined #sdw
13:00:40 [frans]
frans has joined #sdw
13:01:21 [phila]
present+ phila
13:01:29 [phila]
RRSAgent, make logs public
13:01:34 [ScottSimmons]
ScottSimmons has joined #sdw
13:01:35 [roba]
present+
13:02:14 [ahaller2]
present+ ahaller2
13:02:18 [frans]
present+ frans
13:02:37 [ScottSimmons]
present+ ScottSimmons
13:03:04 [phila]
regrets+ Rachel, Lars, SimonCox, AndreaP
13:03:12 [Linda]
present+ Linda
13:04:03 [joshlieberman]
joshlieberman has joined #sdw
13:04:09 [billroberts]
present+ billroberts
13:04:20 [kerry]
scribe: billroberts
13:04:33 [kerry]
scribenick: billroberts
13:05:07 [kerry]
topic: approve minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/08/03-sdw-minutes.html
13:05:10 [MattPerry]
MattPerry has joined #sdw
13:05:20 [billroberts]
PROPOSED:approve minutes of last meeting
13:05:23 [MattPerry]
present+ MattPerry
13:05:35 [ahaller2]
+1
13:05:38 [billroberts]
+1
13:05:45 [Linda]
+1
13:05:48 [kerry]
+1
13:05:50 [ScottSimmons]
+1
13:05:59 [joshlieberman]
+1
13:06:02 [kerry]
resolved: approve minutes of last meeting
13:06:14 [roba]
+1
13:06:32 [kerry]
topic: Coverage update
13:06:49 [kerry]
patent call: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
13:07:26 [kerry]
billroberts: work on coverage has focused on 2 strands
13:07:48 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/08/17-sdw-minutes.html phila
13:07:54 [kerry]
...1 is covjson from u reading and a draft specification will be given more formal status.
13:08:00 [billroberts]
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Cross_reference_of_UCR_to_CovJSON_spec
13:08:01 [ClausStadler]
ClausStadler has joined #sdw
13:08:28 [kerry]
...i have run thru ucs and xref with covjson and wrriten some note (see above) and concluded a pretty good match
13:08:56 [frans]
Bill, did you use the latest editors draft of the UR to cross-reference?
13:08:58 [kerry]
... a missing bit has some ideas being developed now by jon and mail re fragment identifiers and "extracts" with metadata atttached
13:09:18 [ClausStadler]
present+ ClausStadler
13:09:47 [kerry]
.... discussion at last meeting was whetherwe should make it a rec/standard or a not/discussion odc. Issue is resources.
13:10:05 [kerry]
.... esp implementations -- will be discussed with phil
13:10:16 [kerry]
q?
13:10:31 [frans]
s/the UR/the UCR/
13:10:40 [kerry]
...did i use laterst ucr draft ? yes, but it might have moved since
13:11:08 [billroberts]
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Beginnings_of_a_W3C_note
13:11:13 [kerry]
....2 other strand is rdf datacube approach.... dmitry has put together beginnings of what could be a "note"
13:11:14 [phila]
q+
13:11:48 [kerry]
.... roba also doing early stage work on soemthing called qbfor st (space and time dimensions).
13:11:52 [Linda]
q+
13:12:02 [kerry]
.... will see whther these should/could be combined to a note
13:12:16 [kerry]
.. might say how rdf db should be used
13:12:43 [kerry]
.... i will help too
13:12:51 [roba]
q+
13:12:55 [kerry]
...objective to have reasonable drafts
13:13:04 [phila]
ack me
13:13:04 [kerry]
... by tpac meeting
13:13:06 [joshlieberman]
q+
13:14:03 [kerry]
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 [kerry]
.... may not be a formal standards ---a little premature... notes/discussion maybe over standard/recs
13:14:51 [phila]
ack l
13:14:52 [kerry]
billroberts: happy with that -- sounds right to me too
13:15:13 [kerry]
linda: should there be something about cov in BP?
13:15:51 [kerry]
billroberts: yes, seems appropriate. we can put some work into this. already a relevant narrative there.
13:16:08 [kerry]
....we could have a specific bp around this topic.
13:16:13 [frans]
q+
13:16:29 [kerry]
....the new things are quite new so would they be "best practice"?
13:16:32 [kerry]
q?
13:17:12 [kerry]
linda: could be just careful wording e.g "possible approach"
13:17:30 [kerry]
ack roba
13:18:12 [kerry]
roba: plea for help and clarification -- how to take existing bp to definitions that can be reused...
13:19:17 [kerry]
... 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 [kerry]
... 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 [kerry]
... is there a middle glue -- but i need some help here.
13:22:00 [kerry]
ack joshlieberman
13:23:08 [billroberts]
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 [billroberts]
...these have a connection to existing models and definitions. Coverage is a Feature, elements within that are also potentially Features.
13:24:12 [billroberts]
...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 [billroberts]
...the Best Practice could focus on those higher level concepts, plus practical aspects of how to represent those
13:25:20 [kerry]
ack next
13:25:24 [billroberts]
...this would give the basis for converting between those approaches. Different ones have strenghts for different applications
13:25:58 [billroberts]
Frans: is wondering about how coverages relate to the spatial ontology work, partly answered by Josh's recent comment
13:26:05 [billroberts]
...where will the concept of 'Coverage' be defined?
13:27:03 [billroberts]
joshlieberman: [sound lost for a few seconds] has discussed with Rob about defining key concepts of the coverage dimensions/index
13:27:13 [frans]
I lost Josh´s voice for a while
13:27:48 [billroberts]
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 [billroberts]
frans: will it be defined in an RDF ontology?
13:28:21 [billroberts]
joshlieberman: the Data Cube Note could include extensions to the ontology
13:28:55 [billroberts]
joshlieberman: would like to write a charter for OGC to extend GeoSPARQL to reflect his current research work
13:29:21 [billroberts]
...so thinking about what could go into the BP while a possibly long-running consideration of this takes place at OGC
13:29:24 [kerry]
topic: Consolidating (merging) best practices, e.g. the ones on identifiers
13:29:47 [frans]
Josh, I would love to help with the spatial ontology but I am occupied with the UC&R now.
13:30:06 [billroberts]
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 [kerry]
q?
13:30:20 [billroberts]
...would like to talk about consolidating and merging of BPs
13:30:48 [billroberts]
...have created a new section to hold a merged section around best practices for identifiers. Previously there were 5 or so
13:31:10 [Linda]
http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-identifiers
13:31:59 [billroberts]
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 [kerry]
+1 to the merge
13:32:16 [roba]
+1
13:32:21 [frans]
Less is more!
13:32:29 [billroberts]
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 [ScottSimmons]
+1
13:32:57 [billroberts]
Linda: please look at the document over the next few days and give feedback on this approach
13:33:10 [billroberts]
...but seeing the good initial support, will carry on in this way for now
13:33:12 [roba]
i had a look - and its good to improive connection between the issues anyway - maybe some sort of decision tree emerges
13:33:12 [kerry]
q?
13:33:14 [joshlieberman]
q+
13:33:39 [billroberts]
Linda: has already incorporated some comments from Simon
13:33:41 [joshlieberman]
Should identifiers be part of a system for the features of interest?
13:33:41 [kerry]
ack joshlieberman
13:34:16 [billroberts]
joshlieberman: making identifiers part of a system, where the features are part of the system?
13:34:37 [billroberts]
...for example corresponding to paths in a taxonomy
13:34:47 [billroberts]
Linda: no answer right now, will have to think about it
13:35:00 [kerry]
topic: Fix a date for document freeze prior to TPAC (F2F) vote
13:35:10 [roba]
+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 [billroberts]
kerry: for rest of meeting, concentrate on remaining issues in the UCR doc
13:36:01 [billroberts]
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 [billroberts]
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 [billroberts]
kerry: so should it be another Public Working Draft? and so does it need a vote
13:37:21 [billroberts]
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 [phila]
-> https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/NOTE-sdw-ucr-20151217/ UCR
13:37:57 [billroberts]
frans: understood
13:38:31 [billroberts]
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 [billroberts]
phila: no formal requirement, but something like a week before works well in practice
13:39:06 [billroberts]
...are members of the group happy that they have had sufficient time to read it and prepare
13:39:23 [billroberts]
frans: is happy with freezing a week before TPAC
13:39:34 [billroberts]
frans: do we want a public call for comments at that moment?
13:40:04 [billroberts]
...so we should do that a week before TPAC too
13:40:27 [billroberts]
...it would be nice to receive some public comments before TPAC so maybe seeking comments earlier would be better
13:40:39 [billroberts]
phila: notes only 5 weeks to TPAC
13:41:21 [billroberts]
kerry: let's freeze a week before TPAC and respond to any notable public comments that we receive
13:41:31 [kerry]
topic: Editors of deliverables checking requirements in UCR (this thread)
13:41:54 [billroberts]
kerry: Frans would like to check the status of other deliverables and how they relate to UCR
13:42:09 [kerry]
the email thread is here: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Jun/0114.html
13:42:17 [billroberts]
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 [billroberts]
...not many changes required. Their working requirements are well aligned with current status of UCR
13:42:49 [billroberts]
...but hasn't heard yet from SSN group
13:43:40 [billroberts]
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 [billroberts]
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 [kerry]
q+
13:44:34 [billroberts]
...so important to have the links from requirements to deliverable
13:44:51 [billroberts]
kerry: good idea, but not sure it is feasible for SSN, at least not within 5 weeks
13:45:52 [billroberts]
frans: was thinking of a simple checklist or table of requirements and a 'yes' or 'no' whether it was met
13:46:24 [billroberts]
...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 [billroberts]
kerry: doing it on the wiki might be possible in that time
13:46:53 [billroberts]
...but as Phil said, it only has to be final when the working group finishes, so could perhaps be revised later.
13:47:33 [billroberts]
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 [billroberts]
frans: at least we should make sure that all the requirements from the use case analysis are somehow addressed
13:48:06 [billroberts]
kerry: can agree to do that on the wiki
13:48:38 [billroberts]
frans: should the BP document have explicit links to UCR?
13:48:53 [billroberts]
kerry: yes, we have something on that in the 'evidence' sections that have links into the UCR doc
13:49:20 [kerry]
issue: ssn group needs to produce a wiki document that realtes to requirements met or not from UCR
13:49:20 [trackbot]
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 <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/73/edit>.
13:49:35 [billroberts]
frans: that makes it easier to check whether any requirements have been overlooked, especially since some have been added recently
13:50:12 [billroberts]
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 [billroberts]
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 [billroberts]
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 [kerry]
topic: Remaining outstanding issues and actions summary
13:51:59 [frans]
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/products/1
13:52:03 [ScottSimmons]
sorry - must leave a little early due to another meeting that requires brief travel.
13:52:40 [billroberts]
frans: Action 111 will be addressed in next SSN teleconference https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/111
13:52:56 [billroberts]
frans: there is a new requirement on coordinate transformations
13:53:13 [frans]
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/31
13:53:22 [kerry]
+1 on adding requirement for issue-70
13:53:29 [billroberts]
frans: issue 31 has been overlooked until recently
13:54:13 [billroberts]
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 [billroberts]
frans: there are no red issues any more, so should be ready with next version in 2 weeks
13:55:11 [billroberts]
kerry: congratulates Frans
13:55:42 [kerry]
topic: how should geosparql be handled?
13:56:28 [billroberts]
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 [frans]
The spatial ontology is mentioned as a subdeliverable of the BP deliverable
13:56:59 [billroberts]
...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 [kerry]
q?
13:57:15 [billroberts]
...so should there be another SDW document to describe that ontology
13:57:23 [frans]
q+
13:57:36 [kerry]
ack kerry
13:57:40 [kerry]
ack frans
13:58:29 [billroberts]
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 [kerry]
q+
13:59:09 [billroberts]
joshlieberman: yes it's currently at geosemweb.org
13:59:20 [Linda]
+1 to having a note/discussion paper and reference that in BP
13:59:38 [billroberts]
...a W3 note or OGC discussion paper reflect work at similar levels of maturity - not quite ready to become a standard
13:59:48 [roba]
q+
14:00:09 [billroberts]
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 [kerry]
q?
14:00:26 [frans]
q+
14:00:27 [kerry]
ack kerry
14:00:28 [kerry]
ack roba
14:01:07 [billroberts]
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 [joshlieberman]
http://geosemweb.org/sdwgeo goes to a ttl file right now.
14:01:31 [kerry]
q?
14:01:40 [billroberts]
...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 [kerry]
q?
14:02:29 [joshlieberman]
mature state would be a BP reference to a new GeoSPARQL version, but interim measures are the question.
14:02:40 [billroberts]
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 [billroberts]
...it's up to the group and editors to decide how best to do it
14:03:37 [billroberts]
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 [billroberts]
joshlieberman: the ontology is available at the link above. I'll write a description of it to go with it
14:04:09 [billroberts]
phila: who controls geosemweb.org?
14:04:13 [billroberts]
joshlieberman: me
14:04:36 [billroberts]
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 [joshlieberman]
Proposal: reference GeoSPARQL in BP and indicate location of the draft update.
14:04:52 [billroberts]
joshlieberman: so it would be better to have it as an OGC discussion paper
14:05:07 [phila]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:05:07 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/08/17-sdw-minutes.html phila
14:05:09 [billroberts]
kerry: need to talk more about TPAC plans
14:05:34 [billroberts]
kerry: editors, please say how much time you want in the TPAC meeting, so can start putting together an agenda
14:05:51 [billroberts]
phila: early-bird registration runs out at end of month, so register quick
14:05:53 [phila]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:05:53 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/08/17-sdw-minutes.html phila
14:06:00 [frans]
Thanks, have a good day or night
14:06:02 [joshlieberman]
bye
14:06:08 [joshlieberman]
joshlieberman has left #sdw
14:06:13 [billroberts]
bye
14:06:26 [phila]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:06:26 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/08/17-sdw-minutes.html phila
16:07:17 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #sdw