See also: IRC log
<dmitrybrizhinev> can you hear me kerry? I can hear you
<kerry> scribe: scott
<kerry> scribenick: ScottSimmons
<kerry> proposed: Approving last meeting's minutes http://www.w3.org/2016/08/24-sdwcov-minutes
+1
<ChrisLittle> +1
<roba> +1
<kerry> respolved: Approving last meeting's minutes http://www.w3.org/2016/08/24-sdwcov-minutes
Patent call
<kerry> patent call: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
<ChrisLittle> S/respolved/resolved/
Dmitry has text for eo-qb discussion paper
Chris: did not see material in papers yesterday; Kerry just merged an hour ago or so for first, nothing in second
discussion of coverage JSON paper
Jon: appreciate advice (perhaps from Bill) on scope as there are already existing documents on CoverageJSON in GitHub
Jon writing a paper on general aims of CoverageJSON
Jon: should I use paper on aims as basis or should SDWGG discussion paper be something else?
Roba: would be useful to have reference back to use cases and requitements
<ChrisLittle> S/requitements/requirements/
Roba: x-ref to BP2; description of a set (metadata) - what can be used in a more general way
Jon: probably already on that mapping/path
<ChrisLittle> Scott: suggests starts as explanatory text then transmogrified to standard text
ScottSimmons: OGC typically has wide ranging text for DPs. But in this case might be best to both describe the general setting then provide the spec as it stands
Jon: does not want to maintain two versions of the spec
ScottSimmons: OGC DP is not normative, so the spec can be a snapshot and the canonocal version can continue to evolve
<ChrisLittle> +q
Jon: just want to make things clear for what people actually cite
ChrisLittle: WMO uses a manual and then a guide to the manual (normative and informative)
<kerry> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/eo-qb/
Dmitry: would like to go through
in detail with Kerry, invites comments from everyone.
... does not yet have overall flow
Kerry: needs discussion of use cases and requirements
Roba: named to provide those use cases/req's, but will need more participation
Kerry: in this case there is not an existing spec, so should discuss what style of content is appropriate. Descriptive content is always valuable. Specification part should be relatively small
Roba: how close is this intended to be to the ANU (?) ontology?
Dmitry: most of the work has not gone into the ontology, rather focused on the data cube things
Roba: would be a good thing to
include concepts on how we describe spatial-temporal
dimensions
... can reuse some aspects of work associated with DGGS, pay
attention to hierarchy of governance. Break ontologies into
modules
Dmitry: restate: which are specific to this work and which are more generic
Chris: I am a FORTRAN programmer
(!). Consider tiling, not reflected in ontologies and
structures
... consider that the datacube comes from spreadsheet people -
print a spreadsheet and you do get tiles!
Chirs: Coverage tiling group in OGC has not gone anywhere, but is still present to do work
Roba: address time
Kerry: looking for suggestions on
how to handle; time perhaps makes more sense
... how do you line up with datacube
Dmitry: on my list to look at OWL-time ontology
<ChrisLittle> +1 to Ro's ideas, but perhaps not calendars
Roba: QB4ST: idea of binding a CRS to a dimension (time) and common geometries (e.g.,, DGGS)
Kerry: makes more sense to me now - how to query
Chris: concrete example: cube
where one dimension is species of butterfly, how do you tie a
CRS to that dimension?
... have a handle on time as a CRS, many are definitely not
calendars
<jonblower> Sorry, I'm afraid I've got to run to another meeting now
<ChrisLittle> * thanks Jon
Kerry: anything from Jon for TPAC agenda?
Jon: discussion of document in
Tuesday meeting. CoverageJSON has a cubey felling about it -
worth discussing dimensions that cannot be attached to a
CRS
... priority will be rounding-off documents
fist link points to Phil's comments on getting ready for the meeting
S/Phil/Bill
Roba: add to agenda strawman on mail list
Dmitry: Roba - please add an example to assist in review
Kerry: should plan a couple of demos in Plenary meeting
Roba: planning a proof-of-concept for OGC Orlando meeting; Django work that would feed a triple-store and deal with complex inheritance tasks in a user-friendly way
Kerry: should this be added to TPAC agenda?
Roba not exactly waffling, but can provide something
Roba: this is a registration approach to publishing ontology models that exhibit hierarchical characteristics
Kerry will add to agenda for 10 - 15 mins
AOB?
Kerry says goodby - meeting adjourned