07:13:32 RRSAgent has joined #sdw 07:13:32 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-sdw-irc 07:13:34 RRSAgent, make logs world 07:13:34 Zakim has joined #sdw 07:13:36 Zakim, this will be SDW 07:13:36 ok, trackbot 07:13:37 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference 07:13:37 Date: 19 September 2016 07:14:19 s/Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference/Spatial Data on the Web WG F2F, TPAC 2016 Day 1 07:14:31 RRSAgent, make logs public 07:14:37 present+ phila 07:14:51 BartvanLeeuwen has joined #sdw 07:15:53 ByronCinNZ has joined #sdw 07:32:28 eparsons has joined #sdw 07:32:32 ByronCinNZ has joined #sdw 07:34:54 RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdw 07:39:12 Morning all - We are working on getting the webex to work with the room ... please wait than you 07:39:14 AZ has joined #sdw 07:39:31 hello 07:40:02 billroberts has joined #sdw 07:40:23 In order to join the webex, I need a password. 07:40:42 Could a friendly W3C contact person provide it to me, please? 07:41:14 sdw 07:42:09 Thanks, ByronCinNZ 07:42:58 trackbot, start meeting 07:43:00 RRSAgent, make logs world 07:43:02 Zakim, this will be SDW 07:43:02 ok, trackbot 07:43:03 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference 07:43:03 Date: 19 September 2016 07:43:26 billrobe_ has joined #sdw 07:43:28 Present+ eparsons 07:43:47 present+ ByronCinNZ 07:44:00 ahaller2 has joined #sdw 07:44:25 RRSAgent, make logs public 07:44:25 jtandy has joined #sdw 07:44:25 Linda has joined #sdw 07:44:32 present+ ahaller2 07:44:34 present+ Linda 07:44:38 present+ billroberts 07:44:42 present+ jtandy 07:44:46 ClemensPortele has joined #sdw 07:44:52 kerry has joined #sdw 07:45:01 present+ kerry 07:45:02 present+ ClemensPortele 07:45:03 frans has joined #sdw 07:45:33 scribe: Armin 07:45:46 scribenick: ahaller2 07:46:00 present+ AZ 07:47:17 present+ BartvanLeeuwen 07:47:53 present+ frans 07:49:24 present+ RaulGarciaCastro 07:50:08 still working on the webex phone.... 07:50:18 AndreaPerego has joined #sdw 07:50:29 present+ AndreaPerego 07:52:16 ... still trouble geting webex xonnection sorted 07:55:15 AZ = Antoine Zimmermann 07:55:47 Phil is running webex from his laptop can you hear ? 07:55:55 yes 07:56:16 I can hear fine 07:56:25 but I use my phone 07:57:25 sound is gone 07:57:33 same here 07:57:39 OK,we're working on it 07:57:58 yes 07:58:04 dmckenzie has joined #sdw 07:58:39 present+ dmckenzie 07:59:50 agenda: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:F2F4 07:59:51 I can hear most people in the room fine 08:01:07 phila has changed the topic to: agenda for today https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:F2F4 08:02:59 chair: Ed 08:03:24 eparsons: introduction 08:04:20 ericP has joined #sdw 08:05:33 fasr has joined #sdw 08:05:59 present+ 08:06:10 present+ fasr 08:08:32 scribe: phila 08:08:37 scribeNick: phila 08:08:46 Ed: begins with a tour de table 08:10:29 RRSAgent, draft minutes 08:10:29 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-sdw-minutes.html phila 08:11:52 fasr = Francisco Regateiro (Lisbon University) 08:12:15 scribe: ahaller2 08:12:19 scribeNick: ahaller2 08:13:32 regrets+ payam 08:14:07 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:F2F4 08:14:41 eparsons: going through agenda 08:15:49 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call 08:15:54 eparsons: patent call 08:16:09 overview of recent changes in the UC&R document: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#SPWD-TPWD 08:16:34 frans: UC&R introduction 08:17:28 ... some changes to requirements have been made 08:17:37 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/products/1 08:18:04 ... 6 possible upcoming changes 08:18:32 ... other subgroups should be aware of these new requirements 08:19:42 eparsons: are there any requirements we can close now? 08:20:01 frans: more that people are aware of them 08:21:10 kerry: let's work through the list of requirements 08:21:52 frans: issue-75 08:22:03 issue-75? 08:22:03 issue-75 -- quality metadata out of scope? -- open 08:22:03 http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/75 08:22:50 frans: quality for each set of data point may be needed 08:23:02 q+ to ask if the requirement is a little more generic ... 08:23:20 kerry: quality indicators can be modelled in SSN 08:23:31 ack next 08:23:32 jtandy, you wanted to ask if the requirement is a little more generic ... 08:23:36 ... SSN will be linked to Coverage which is one requirement 08:23:59 q+ to talk about DQV 08:24:15 ... in my opinion, it is out of scope here 08:24:37 q+ 08:24:48 jtandy: data acquisition may be another use case where you attach metadata to a data point 08:25:08 ack next 08:25:09 phila, you wanted to talk about DQV 08:25:10 ... i have not seen a common practice how to attach metadata to the data point 08:25:53 ... for example, someone says the flood water has come to their house. it would be useful to see metadata attached to that. 08:26:28 ... attach metadata to a dataset record 08:27:07 kerry: it is a pattern, not an ontological requirement 08:27:19 phila: I don't think it is out of scope 08:27:38 ... we don't have to do it ourselves, other working groups have done that 08:27:39 -> https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dqv/ DQV 08:28:08 ack next 08:28:20 q+ to say that clinical sometimes relegate uncertainty to extensibility mechanisms have lots include stuff lke at-least or at-most in the core 08:28:23 ... it is in scope, it is important to talk about accuracy and precision. It is important for the editors for those deliverables to include examples how to use it. 08:28:43 ack next 08:28:44 ericP, you wanted to say that clinical sometimes relegate uncertainty to extensibility mechanisms have lots include stuff lke at-least or at-most in the core 08:29:37 billrobe_: identify individual data points might be a requirement too. 08:31:06 ericP: clinical domain, where it was very important to talk about quality of data 08:31:56 eparsons: we could close issue-75 by saying it is in scope 08:32:24 frans: do we have a crowd-sourcing use case 08:32:33 s/case/case? 08:33:07 ... use case to attach metadata not for datasets, but for individual data points 08:34:12 RESOLUTION: Issue-75 is in scope, close issue-75. 08:34:21 +1 08:34:27 +1 08:34:41 frans: make it a requirement for best practices, potentially also for SSN 08:34:43 +1 08:34:45 present+ DanBri 08:35:48 frans: Issue-70 08:35:50 close issue-75 08:35:50 Closed issue-75. 08:35:54 issue-70? 08:35:54 issue-70 -- Add a requirement for avoiding coordinate transformations? -- open 08:35:54 http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/70 08:35:55 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/70 08:36:06 s/lke/like/ 08:36:19 frans: I don't think anyone is opposed to this requirement 08:36:29 q+ 08:37:05 eparsons: can we talk about the wording 08:37:15 danbri has joined #sdw 08:37:39 q+ 08:37:54 ... putting a huge effort on the publishers, realistically we don't project data to multiple coordinate reference systems 08:38:01 q+ to suggest that we're missing a best practice for publishing in multiple formats and representations? 08:38:32 ack next 08:39:51 ack next 08:39:52 ByronCinNZ: default CRS should be the fall back 08:40:36 proposed requirement: *Requirement: *Data consumers should be helped in avoiding coordinate 08:40:36 transformations when spatial data from multiple sources are combined. 08:40:40 billrobe_: in practice we talk about 2 CRS covering 99% of the use cases 08:40:46 ack next 08:40:47 jtandy, you wanted to suggest that we're missing a best practice for publishing in multiple formats and representations? 08:40:59 ... the publisher taking work of the user is a good thing 08:42:05 RRSAgent, draft minutes 08:42:05 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-sdw-minutes.html phila 08:42:07 jtandy: if you publish in the CRS of your national agencies requirement, look at your audience and decide if you can publish in multiple CRSs, e.g. your national and mercator 08:42:37 q+ 08:42:38 ... if you can afford it, do it 08:42:59 eparsons: finesse the wording here. publish in multiple CRS to meet your user requirements 08:43:26 ... e.g. if you are in Britain, publish in British national grid and another one 08:43:54 frans: we need to keep the requirement phrased as a requirement, not to propose a solution 08:44:06 q+ to agree with Frans 08:44:23 ... one solution is to publish data using multiple CRS, but we should not include that in the requirement 08:44:27 phila: Notes BWBP 14 https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#MultipleFormats 08:44:34 q? 08:44:38 phila: As many users as possible will be able to use the data without first having to transform it into their preferred format. 08:44:39 ack next 08:44:42 q+ 08:45:07 kerry: the publishers are our users as well. We should make the life easy for both. 08:45:22 ... how to we identify the CRS and is there a default CRS? 08:45:37 ack next 08:45:38 jtandy, you wanted to agree with Frans 08:45:38 jtandy: there is never to be a default CRS 08:46:09 ... we can't make a reference to a coordinate without a CRS! 08:46:39 ack next 08:47:20 phila: best practice 14 from dwbp 08:47:56 ... as many people as possible will be able to use the data without transforming it 08:48:04 q+ 08:48:08 ack next 08:48:14 https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/CR-dwbp-20160830/#MultipleFormats 08:48:50 ericP: encouraged to publish in standard format is always a good best practice 08:49:46 q? 08:50:14 ... if there is a publisher who does not use the standard format, a third party can come along and do the transformation 08:50:29 eparsons: can we close that issue? 08:51:32 eparsons: pass it on to the best practices requirements 08:51:33 PROPOSED: Close issue-70 that we need to pass this on to BP to handle, encouraging publishers' need to meet broadest possible community 08:53:05 +1 08:53:08 +1 08:53:11 RESOLUTION: Close issue-70 that we need to pass this on to BP to handle, encouraging publishers' need to meet broadest possible community 08:53:18 +1 08:53:20 +1 08:53:22 +1 08:53:24 close issue-70 08:53:24 Closed issue-70. 08:53:29 issue-74? 08:53:29 issue-74 -- That uom and precision and accuracy should be covered in ucr and bp (and respected in other deliverables too) -- open 08:53:29 http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/74 08:53:33 frans: issue-74 08:54:43 ... current proposal is to have unit of measurements should always be included in observations 08:55:26 q+ to dig into "unit of measurements should always be included in observations" 08:55:46 ack next 08:55:47 phila, you wanted to dig into "unit of measurements should always be included in observations" 08:56:38 sangchul has joined #sdw 08:57:08 phila: dwbp, uom should be included, but not in the string, but as a separate attribute 08:57:42 danbri: in schema.org we have some workarounds 08:57:59 present+ Chris_McGlyn 08:58:03 ... space between $ and price, but it is not a best practice as such 08:58:17 q? 08:58:50 eparsons: wouldn't the uom not be part of the metadata of the dataset 08:58:51 s/McGlyn/McGlinn/ 08:59:00 q+ 08:59:07 ack next 08:59:53 kerry: it is very particular kind of metadata. If you have spatial data and you don't have the uom, it is useless. So it is essential metadata. 09:00:11 There's an example in DQV on the use of UoMs for data accuracy and precision: https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dqv/#ExpressDatasetAccuracyPrecision 09:00:18 PROPOSED: That it is q requirement to have UoM included 09:00:25 +1 09:00:27 +1 09:00:27 +1 09:00:29 +1 09:00:29 +1 09:00:31 +1 09:00:31 +1 09:00:37 +1 09:00:39 RESOLUTION: That it is a requirement to have UoM included, close issue-74 09:00:46 +1 09:00:47 close issue-74 09:00:47 Closed issue-74. 09:00:57 RRSAgent, draft minutes 09:00:57 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-sdw-minutes.html phila 09:01:06 issue 74 proposal 1: We expand CRS definition requirement a bit to make it clear that a CRS definition should include an indication of UoM. For instance: 09:01:06 "There should be a recommended way of referencing a Coordinate Reference System (CRS) with a HTTP URI, and to get useful data about the CRS when that URI is dereferenced. The CRS data should include the unit of measurement of the CRS." 09:01:30 issue 74 proposal 2: We add a new requirement: 09:01:30 "The use of precision that matches uncertainty in coordinate data should be facilitated and encouraged" 09:01:40 issue-76? 09:01:40 issue-76 -- New requirement for multiple CRSs? -- open 09:01:40 http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/76 09:01:41 issue-76? 09:01:41 issue-76 -- New requirement for multiple CRSs? -- open 09:01:41 http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/76 09:02:34 jtandy: there is no requirement to have multiple CRSs, but data should be accessible, which could be multiple CRSs 09:03:29 kerry: it is same as issue-70 09:03:37 issue-70 09:03:37 issue-70 -- Add a requirement for avoiding coordinate transformations? -- closed 09:03:37 http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/70 09:04:43 jtandy: geojson does not support multiple representations of the same data 09:05:19 ... so you split data out in different representations 09:05:25 q? 09:06:35 ericP: 70 says to minimise transformations, 76 is a solution to that 09:07:17 jungbin has joined #sdw 09:07:17 ... rephrase 76 to make it a requirement 09:08:01 frans: to publish multiple CRS can have different reasons, i.e. to follow standards, not just to make it easier for users 09:08:05 +1 to eric's comment -- make sure issue 70 is just phrased right 09:08:22 eparsons: close 76 and it is 70, but rephrased 09:08:53 frans: publishing in multiple CRS is already a practice, but they don't know what the best practice is 09:10:08 chunming has joined #sdw 09:10:23 PROPOSED: Issue-76 is close enough to issue-70 that we can cover it in the way we closed 70, although there is a difference in perspective 09:11:31 eparsons: close enough, they will both be covered in best practices document 09:13:30 PROPOSED: There are cases where there is a requirement for more than pone CRS, so we can close issue-76 09:13:37 +1 09:13:39 +1 09:13:42 +1 09:13:44 s/pone/one 09:13:46 +1 09:13:48 +1 09:13:48 +1 09:13:51 _1 09:13:51 +1 09:13:55 +1 09:14:01 RESOLUTION: There are cases where there is a requirement for more than one CRS, so we can close issue-76 09:15:20 close issue-76 09:15:20 Closed issue-76. 09:15:26 Coffee break back at 10:30 local - 15mins form now 09:23:23 present+ 09:26:15 jtandy has joined #sdw 09:32:36 jtandy has joined #sdw 09:32:44 Slowly returning... 09:33:02 frans has joined #sdw 09:33:54 ahaller2 has joined #sdw 09:34:58 billroberts has joined #sdw 09:35:04 scribe: kerry 09:35:18 RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdw 09:35:20 scribenick: kerry 09:35:24 billrobe_ has joined #sdw 09:35:36 I’ll come back after lunch 09:35:51 Yes 09:36:01 RRSAgent, draft minutes 09:36:01 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-sdw-minutes.html phila 09:36:09 BTW: the summary of SDW bps is here - http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-summary 09:36:47 present+ BernaLoscio 09:36:57 agenda for the BP session is here https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:F2F4#Monday 09:38:06 jtandy: topic: best practice 09:38:09 hadleybeeman has joined #sdw 09:38:12 dmckenzie has joined #sdw 09:38:52 jtandy: we don't hve time toi cover all 17 issues. please help to priorities 09:39:21 ...thankyou for all the expert opinion so far -- but tricky to distil into workable bps 09:39:36 ...linda nad I have bben working hard on this but it is harder than we expected 09:39:53 ... abd we have less time to devote going forward 09:40:15 q+ to talk about engagement 09:40:19 ...we can still do edit and style and steer and rank, but we need WG members to own sections of the doc (a BP) 09:40:28 ack next 09:40:29 phila, you wanted to talk about engagement 09:40:43 .... think of this as you can volunteer for a BP topic 09:41:17 phila: people read the doc getting close to publication , as i have on the plane here 09:41:47 ... see kadvice from bernadette 09:42:29 bernadette: one person read the whole doc at a very late point and made a *lot* of comments which were helpful but took a long time to process 09:42:48 ...it is really important if people read the details before the last minute .. 09:43:04 ... we had text that had been there right through that then got questioned right at the end. 09:43:33 ...we had to have meetings on specific points that were raised, the doc got much better 09:43:48 ...but it is important to read t he details asap is better 09:44:05 q? 09:44:10 jtandy: and specific targeted meetins with the person raising the issue 09:44:32 bernadette: also good was f2f to foucs 09:45:09 jtandy: and you got the WG to comment on particular BPs, but it all comes in a rush at the end 09:45:26 phila: in theory we need to every thing finalised right now -- time is running out 09:46:37 jtandy: until 12:30 need to shake down best practices -- whic are the least clear and/or mist important? 09:46:46 s/mist/most/ 09:47:13 .... linda is preparing a tally -- whoc has top priority to nominate of the 17? 09:47:18 s/whic /which / 09:47:59 s/whoc/which/ 09:48:21 sangchul has joined #sdw 09:48:53 clemens: bp 1, bp 7, a missing one on using complex iso models and how to translate to rdf json and others -- how do we advise data publishers on this? 09:49:34 BernadetteLoscio has joined #sdw 09:49:37 ClemensPortele: is there a simple solution? Needed for inspire. 09:49:43 billrobe_: 4, 7, 8 09:49:47 present+ BernadetteLoscio 09:49:58 eparsons: 4, 7 ,14 09:49:59 present+ hadleybeeman 09:50:23 BartvanLeeuwen: 4,7,14 09:51:23 AndreaPerego: terminology: spaatail thing, features, and its effect on the draft ontology 09:51:32 Note hadleybeeman 09:51:34 s/spaatial/spatial/ 09:51:50 s/spaatail/spatial/ 09:52:03 jungbin has joined #sdw 09:52:19 AndreaPerego: 7 09:52:24 s/toi/to 09:52:26 RRSAgent, draft minutes 09:52:26 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-sdw-minutes.html phila 09:52:35 s/hve/have 09:52:43 frans: 8 and 9 09:52:52 Linda: 4, 7, 8 09:53:31 q? 09:53:46 jtandy: 9 (fuzzy boundaries),, 7, something on crowdsourcing 09:54:11 any voters on webex? 09:54:12 hadleybeeman: process question: are you planning implementations? 09:54:42 jtandy: we plan to point to implementations in the wild -- but we may have trouble finding some 09:54:58 hadleybeeman: are you separating existing form not yet existing? 09:55:28 jtandy: we expect to indicate that -- things will not be "proper best practices" if not implemented in the wild 09:56:08 ByronCinNZ: 3, 4, 9 but if we a re doing 3 anyway i vote for formats (8) 09:56:23 s/a re/ are/ 09:56:47 Yes 8 09:57:07 AZ: 7 09:57:31 jtandy: so we will do top 4. 09:57:51 Linda: 7, 4, 8, 9 09:58:07 jtandy: 20 minutes on each 09:58:20 http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#globally-unique-ids 09:58:20 -> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#globally-unique-ids BP7 09:58:21 jtandy: pls read the bp for number 7 now 09:58:49 jtandy: there is also a meeting thread 09:59:09 see email summary for BP 7: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Aug/0139.html 09:59:56 ahh - that was the top of the thread ... I'm finding the summary now 10:01:12 summary = https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Sep/0096.html 10:01:55 q+ 10:02:16 q+ to talk about "Reuse identifiers when you can" 10:02:40 chu has joined #sdw 10:02:48 ack next 10:03:36 topic: BP number 7 http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#globally-unique-ids 10:04:10 eparsons: need some context, e.g. explaining that now you need to publish stuff at a finer granularity that you are used to 10:04:43 ... when we publish we need that every thing/feature/atomoc piece needs an identifier 10:04:50 http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#how-to-use 10:05:17 jtandy: I was trying to to unpack that conecept here http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#how-to-use 10:05:38 ... so here's your starting point 10:05:49 Lost audio 10:05:59 [phone dropped out ... messing around trying to fix] 10:06:07 Thanks 10:06:34 and the identifiers context is provided here: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#what-r-u-talking-about 10:07:21 audio back 10:07:35 Cheers 10:08:06 jtandy: ... in irs is link to what are u talking about -- context for identifying -- is that the context we need? 10:08:12 q+ 10:09:00 eparsons: yes, but we need bits of it restated again within the relevant bp presenation: this will be very new for SDI audience although old hat for web people 10:09:37 eparsons: will laso apply to other BPs where a fundamental change is recommended 10:09:39 ack next 10:09:40 ClemensPortele, you wanted to talk about "Reuse identifiers when you can" 10:10:02 ClemensPortele: reuse identifiers when you can -- how is this going to work? 10:10:55 e.g using dppedia or geonames for the uir, but i want to publish something else -- if you retirve the uri you will not come to my information that i am publishing 10:11:12 s/iur/uri/ 10:11:19 q+ 10:11:25 ack next 10:11:33 ClemensPortele: so my publishing will still be dark becuase noone will come to it 10:11:55 Linda: responding to ed -- is the "why" section of bp not good enough? 10:12:12 ...e.g. BP 7 starts with heading "Why". What is missing? 10:12:53 eparsons: the granularity in particular, not just and enpoint for a wfs, but every object there 10:13:13 Linda: so if you are used to using wfs -- this is how it is different 10:13:40 eparsons: addressed to particular users -- highlght how this is going to be different for you. 10:13:48 q+ 10:13:51 jtandy: examples will help with this 10:13:55 ack next 10:14:14 billrobe_: on ClemensPortele point about identifiers, 10:14:54 .... it depends on your data model and say you are doing datacube you do want someeone else's identifier so that you can interoperate 10:15:10 ack next 10:15:17 ... one very useful case is the n-ary relations wheret ehe place is the object of the statement 10:15:34 hmm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smeaton%27s_Tower "Smeaton's Tower is the third and most notable Eddystone Lighthouse." -> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3995634 50°21'51.8"N, 4°8'30.5"W vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddystone_Lighthouse -> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q546122 50°10'48"N, 4°16'12"W 10:16:19 ByronCinNZ: in realtion to data on the we bp, in our case we need the spatial things themselves 10:16:45 jtandy: dwbp has 2 cases, , thes second is item-level 10:17:09 phila: adwbp a lot of the examples use it as well 10:17:52 ... noone is going to store full uris as a wate of space -- it may not be stored as a uri but must be translatable to one easily 10:17:54 q+ 10:18:00 s/wate/waste/ 10:18:15 ack next 10:18:33 ericP: could be a relative URI so properly managed 10:19:01 q+ to ask about syntax (e.g. json-ld would allow foo:bar qualified names, other contexts allow gzip, ...) 10:19:18 AndreaPerego: responding to phila , in geospatail catalogues we have unique uids, these can be added to a base uri, is this ok? 10:19:21 ack next 10:19:22 danbri, you wanted to ask about syntax (e.g. json-ld would allow foo:bar qualified names, other contexts allow gzip, ...) 10:19:49 danbri: what syntax ? can have different abbreviations depending on sytax 10:20:21 ... can rely on storage tool 10:20:52 another e.g. if you're in an XHTML regime you could use entities; in JSON-LD qnames or however JSON-LD calls qualified names. 10:20:54 eparsons: so the best approach is syntax-specific, but the gneral idea is the same and we need to force the issue 10:21:05 jtandy: content we are heading the right direction 10:21:18 s/gneral/general 10:21:19 jtandy: billrobe_ waht are you specific issues? 10:21:24 s/waht/what 10:21:45 s/geospatail/geospatial 10:22:30 billrobe_: BP mostly covers it ... item 3 "stable identifiers" is a complex modelling problem to decide if it does change (e.g. boundaries change and sometimes that is critical) but this is covered in bp as it is 10:23:07 q+ to panic a little 10:23:22 BartvanLeeuwen: agree with clemes becuase need a uri that resolves to what I want to say about it, an d the way I want it resolved 10:23:52 s/an d/and 10:24:39 ack next 10:24:40 phila, you wanted to panic a little 10:24:42 AZ: bp 7 is very important but i do not have a specific concern 10:25:10 q+ 10:25:12 Linda: we discussed indirect identifiers in mailing list which was almost resolved and should go here 10:25:33 phila: want to hear from dan, erric, hadley on this 10:25:55 phila: you do not want to use a goenames uri as the subject in your rdf? 10:26:46 ClemensPortele: yes, but not necessarily rdf -- i want my representation to be the target of resolultion 10:27:20 q+ 10:27:30 phila: ok, so you don't want geonames to be the response -- so should we recomment owl:sameas? 10:27:54 phila: can we use owl:sameAs? 10:28:06 q+ re owl:sameAs being a very strong claim 10:28:06 q+ 10:28:12 q+ 10:28:17 ack next 10:28:28 ...so maybe 3 people all point to anne frank's house 10:29:07 q+ 10:29:14 AndreaPerego: the point is also about provenance to know who is saying what, maybe this solves that 10:29:15 ack next 10:29:44 ack next 10:29:45 danbri, you wanted to discuss owl:sameAs being a very strong claim 10:29:46 ericP: don;t want sameas as as it is not the same tihng just in the same place 10:29:52 q+ 10:30:04 s/tihng/thing/ 10:30:15 ...want to addreess use case of a location and you need to make a decision -- you invent more predicates 10:30:23 s/don;t/don't/ 10:30:23 danbri: what eric just said 10:30:39 ack next 10:30:44 danbri: sameas is almost like swearing 10:31:17 danbri: e.g. whiioch poland? and smeaton's tower is it hte same as edystone lighthouse? 10:31:54 phila: but there is aconnection and we want that reoirded 10:32:29 Wonder wheter rdfs:seeAlso could to the job instead o owl:sameAs? 10:32:44 s/wheter/whether/ 10:33:05 s/o owl:sameAs/of owl:sameAs/ 10:33:10 eparsons: so anne franks house in my database (BP 14 and 15) linking my datababse of houses in amsterdam with bart's database of fires in amsterdam 10:33:30 seeAlso is pretty weak, owl:sameAs is super strong, there are things also like skos mappings that sit along the spectrum between those 10:33:34 ... I need to say that I have a consistent uri within my database (reuse is elsewhere) 10:33:46 q+ 10:33:48 hadleybeeman: but "reuse identifiers" is in here! 10:33:48 q- 10:34:03 ClemensPortele: we have a different understanding of reuse 10:34:41 ack next 10:35:23 kerry : duty to create predicate "sameplace" 10:35:25 kerry: i believe it is our duty to construct a predicate that captures samePlaceAs 10:35:28 ack next 10:35:31 q+ 10:35:35 .. bp 14 is establishing the links,, and that is different from... 10:36:11 sameplace could be one of the spatial relationships we need to have defined 10:36:16 q? 10:36:21 ClemensPortele: we shouln't just look at OWL e.g. geosjson, e.g. scheam.org sameAs 10:36:38 eparsons: call for wap of scribes 10:37:02 phila: please read DWBP best practice 10 as it contradicts us 10:37:03 ack next 10:37:09 q+ 10:37:10 hadleybeeman: yes! 10:37:11 scribe: phila 10:37:16 scribeNick: phila 10:37:50 hadleybeeman: If I understand you correctly, people are asying that they don't want to use other people's identifiers because you want to make your own statements about things 10:38:01 ack next 10:38:10 BartvanLeeuwen: One of the issues we have is, are we too RDF-centric 10:38:29 BartvanLeeuwen: If you put a spatial thing on a map, and people want to click it, then people can find out more. 10:39:00 q+ to say that reuse identifiers is always great. also complicated, also worth reminding people, but creating the abstract relationships ducks the controversy. 10:39:10 ... I want to create a page that says Anne Frank's house is on fire that it has interesting shutters etc. 10:39:44 hadleybeeman: But you're saying you want an ID for the fire at Anne Frank's House 10:40:25 ack next 10:40:27 jtandy: So Bart describes an incident that happens and Ed is describing the shutters.. 10:40:48 hadleybeeman: Draws diagram of the house, its fire and its shutters 10:41:08 ... But they're both about the same place 10:41:09 q+ AV 10:41:32 q? 10:41:56 Yes I am here 10:42:18 q? 10:42:35 hadleybeeman: You need diff IDs for the incident and the shutters but they're both about the same thing and for that we say use the same URI 10:42:53 q+ 10:43:30 billrobe_: Agrees with hadleybeeman and gives example. Also, we're not only in the RDF world, so the majrity of use cases work well with using some definitive ID for Anne Frank's House 10:43:51 q+ 10:44:06 billrobe_: I can deliver my info about Amsterdam as HTML and RDF... 10:44:19 ack next 10:44:19 Or CSV 10:44:20 ericP, you wanted to say that reuse identifiers is always great. also complicated, also worth reminding people, but creating the abstract relationships ducks the controversy. 10:44:21 jtandy: And then maybe use schema:sameAs 10:44:51 ericP: Some perspective... every BP in every environment says use URIs as IDs but the zeroth law is don't lie 10:45:20 ... A little bit of ontology that allows you to say 'same location as' - people get to reuse IDs there. They're not encouraged to reuse IDs where they shouldn't 10:45:28 ... Also get to avoid complex converdsations... 10:45:45 ... Coming up with hard and fast rules about saying two incidents are the same is very hard 10:46:04 s/converdsations/conversations 10:46:16 ... You don't want to get into worrying about why two things are the same 10:46:34 ack next 10:46:48 q? 10:46:48 q- 10:46:49 ack next 10:47:17 ahaller2: Eric said what I wanted to say. Same location as is the only predicate we need. 10:47:38 q? 10:47:41 q+ 10:47:44 ack next 10:47:44 q+ 10:48:50 q+ 10:48:56 ClemensPortele: I'm worried about this strong 'same'. Many things in a map will have IDs, and finding 'the canonical identifier' is nigh on impossible and no one will do it. 10:49:13 ack next 10:49:15 ... A more relaxed linkage is good 10:49:48 jtandy: I think we're concluding that we need a more relaxed relationship for this. Maybe this is a missing BP 10:50:08 q? 10:50:31 ... We're saying that if you want to relate two things as being in the same place, we should show how to do it without necessarily using the same ID. 10:50:50 eparsons: I think that's BP 14 or 15, not 7 10:50:52 ack next 10:50:58 q+ to ask if "best practice" (vs normative spec) allows for this kind of fuzziness already 10:51:06 danbri has joined #sdw 10:51:32 proposal: https://gist.github.com/danbri/12cbbdb26cfa25a5bc6ac2060788766f (too long for IRC :) 10:51:35 frans: Spatial same as - in spatial data, we talk about spatial things and geometries. You have a well established system for saying geometries are the same 10:51:56 +1 to frans remark 10:51:57 frans: Maybe we need a set of relationships for spatial things 10:52:01 ack next 10:52:18 jtandy: So the predicate that Kerry suggested... some sort of geometric calculus? 10:52:22 q+ 10:52:31 kerry: No, some sort of (non-computable) spatial relations. 10:53:03 q? 10:53:04 q? 10:53:08 zakim, close queue 10:53:08 ok, phila, the speaker queue is closed 10:53:22 ack next 10:53:23 hadleybeeman, you wanted to ask if "best practice" (vs normative spec) allows for this kind of fuzziness already 10:53:24 kerry: You know we talked about backlinks? This is where I think it's relevant 10:54:11 hadleybeeman: I hear you discussing this BP and it sounds as if you agree but you're looking for edge cases where it doesn't work. Does this being a Note help to allow some fuzziness? 10:54:39 jtandy: In GeoSPARQL - OGC is creating an ontology for this 10:54:57 hadleybeeman: Butr you're writing BPs which doesn't need to be as precise as a Rec 10:55:12 ack next 10:55:15 kerry: I don't think they're edge cases, they're normal 10:55:46 BernadetteLoscio: When you're talking about datasets and the items within them, the item is Anne Frank's house? Not stuff within it? 10:56:01 jtandy: Anne Frank's house could have a point, 2 or 3 D polygon 10:57:59 [More discussion of IDs for Anne Frank's House] 10:58:14 [and assertions about Anne Frank's House] 10:58:52 -> http://sws.geonames.org/6618987/ Anne Frank's House 10:59:17 zakim, open queue 10:59:17 ok, eparsons, the speaker queue is open 10:59:32 Topic: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#indexable-by-search-engines 10:59:49 q? 10:59:55 q+ 11:00:26 "Search engines should receive a metadata response to a HTTP GET when dereferencing the link target URI." … what is a link target URI? 11:00:37 billrobe_: We spent a lot of time talking about creating precise machine readable data about things that, AFAIK, search engines are ignoring. 11:00:53 ... schema.org might be a route to providing something useful for search? 11:01:21 billrobe_: Is there sometehing already in place that we can use in our BPs? 11:01:23 q+ 11:01:23 q? 11:01:27 ack b 11:02:20 q+ 11:02:21 jtandy: We've suggested that schema.org provides a vocab that helps search engines index things like schema:Place 11:02:44 jtandy: Does that help search engines answer questions like find coffee shops near here? 11:02:48 danbri: Potentially 11:02:56 q? 11:03:02 danbri: schema.org works because it sits on top of what was in place already. 11:03:23 danbri: RDF tried to build a parallel Web that ignored the existing billions of pages. 11:03:48 q+ 11:03:49 ... If you express your data in schema.org, there's no guarantee it'll be used. 11:04:11 danbri: I don't understand what a link target URI is? 11:04:22 q? 11:04:32 jtandy: For a URL, if you defref a URL, you should get back an HTML page that might have embedded data 11:05:05 ... but the granularity might change. You want a URL for everything in a WFS 11:05:10 ClemensPortele: That exists already 11:05:17 jtandy: But it's not crawlable 11:05:27 q? 11:05:35 danbri: A lot of sites used to hide things behind HTTP POST 11:06:14 ack next 11:06:16 ... I think the same thing happened around SDIs - things are hidden. You need to make a Web page, make sure robots.txt doesn't exclude it etc. 11:06:29 danbri: Don't treat it as a special universe. 11:06:42 billrobe_: Makes sense, but it's not often practiced. 11:06:57 danbri: Content negotiation is a tricky one. Se Web loves it 11:07:04 ericP: JSON likes it 11:07:22 ... It's a problem if the data is too large 11:07:27 q? 11:07:55 ClemensPortele: In the Geonovum test, what we did was what we said here. We ctreated an HTML paghe for every resource that we had and included schema.org in that. 11:08:01 ... the tricky part 11:08:15 ... theoretically it's a BP, in the real world it's not exploited. 11:08:21 q+ re w3c instruments 11:08:25 ... We could't really argue that it made a big impact 11:08:46 q+ 11:09:15 ClemensPortele: If we look at reviews, it's definitely a BP. But not really for everything. 11:09:26 ack next 11:09:44 ByronCinNZ: I feel like it's tryiung to say too much 11:10:11 ... There's a lot in there that I find contentious-ish. A BP on fail metadata, well that's about keeping metadata up to date. 11:10:26 ... Maybe it could be more succicnt. What actually is the point? 11:10:46 ... Some BPs have really good examples 11:11:12 ... could be more direct and more usable. 11:11:32 q? 11:11:33 for Google's use, see also https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/local-businesses (opening hours oriented), https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/events (events…) 11:11:59 q+ "is something _on the web_ if search engines can't see it?" 11:12:08 ack next 11:12:21 q+ to ask "is something _on the web_ if search engines can't see it?" 11:12:33 frans: Should this BP not simply say, make HTML models of the data you provide? 11:12:52 ... It you at least make HTML pages you've made progress on making your data search engine searchable. 11:13:09 ... The other thing is linkage between the thing and the metadata 11:13:26 ... I imagine a SE requests a page, looks for links and then follows those links 11:13:41 rrsagent, draft minutes 11:13:41 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-sdw-minutes.html kerry 11:14:01 ... What's required is a link from the data to the metadata and then links within that. Maybe to subsets and other subsets 11:14:03 ack next 11:14:04 danbri, you wanted to discuss w3c instruments 11:14:04 -> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=media-types [media-types] Review request for application/geo+json-seq media type registration 11:14:10 Linda: Like a sitemap 11:14:27 ClemensPortele: But sitemaps are limited to 25K links 11:14:34 ... We had 8 million addresses 11:14:47 q? 11:14:51 Linda: It can be paged 11:14:57 q? 11:15:43 danbri: Is the word 'Best' correct. W3C likes to attract people to try out new stuff. It seems a lot of what we're talking about is new. 11:16:03 ... I spend a lot of time trying to get people to make use of schema.org data. 11:16:14 ack next 11:16:16 q? 11:16:23 q+ to propose "Emerging Practices" 11:16:35 q- 11:16:36 ... If all we can write is BPs then we're limited. If we can say emerging practice we perhaps can go further 11:17:11 q? 11:17:21 eparsons: There's a heirarchy of BPs. There are simple things you can do, like exposing what's behind your WFS. Next step is to create HTML pages, next step is to add in structured data 11:17:40 i believe hierarchies like this are expressed on coffee mugs 11:17:42 ... i.e. take a stepwise approach. BPs can be incremental. 11:17:45 q? 11:17:46 ack next 11:17:48 jtandy, you wanted to ask "is something _on the web_ if search engines can't see it?" 11:17:50 I was just reviewing https://www.w3.org/TR/mwabp/ Mobile Web Application Best Practices (2010). A lot of it is both precise and has survived the test of time. It updates even earlier work, https://www.w3.org/blog/BPWG/2010/12/14/mobile_web_application_best_practices_is_2 from https://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/ (2008). Earliest I can find is https://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-mobile-bp-20051017/ 11:18:17 jtandy: Is it on the web only if search engines can't see it? They only look at webpages 11:18:25 danbri: Nope, images, etc. 11:18:46 Q+ to talk about how this works for browser standards 11:19:24 jtandy: Is the BP more along the lines of creating a human readable page and then maybe a structured version 11:19:36 eparsons: WxS isn't on the Web, it's on the dark Web 11:20:04 jtandy: If we want our data to be on the Web, people should be able to find it with a normal browser. Better still using some structured data as well (schema.org) 11:20:13 ack next 11:20:14 hadleybeeman, you wanted to talk about how this works for browser standards 11:20:18 ... if we can encourage people to do that then the SEs might start to use it. 11:20:30 zakim close queue 11:20:58 zakim, close queue 11:20:58 ok, eparsons, the speaker queue is closed 11:21:30 jtandy: I think we've made progress with BP4, yes 11:21:57 phila: It's consistent with DWBP's advice on making (meta)data human and machine readable 11:22:06 zakim, open queue 11:22:06 ok, eparsons, the speaker queue is open 11:22:13 Topic: Best Practice 8: Provide geometries on the Web in a usable way 11:22:21 -> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#describe-geometry BP8 11:22:34 RRSAgent, draft minutes 11:22:34 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-sdw-minutes.html phila 11:23:06 jtandy: Proposes to take 60 mins for lunch 11:23:13 ... Then we can pick up BP8 11:23:22 ... Rather than try and rush it in 8 mins 11:23:32 RRSAgent, draft minutes 11:23:32 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-sdw-minutes.html phila 11:23:56 hadleybeeman: On Best/Emerging practices... 11:24:10 Lunch at 12:30 - will be back at 13:30 11:24:15 ... We've been discussing this a lot in the TAG and whether W3C is where standards are created or ratified 11:24:32 ... What the HTML Web Browser world is that for any new idea, they want it hammered out in a Community Group. 11:25:01 ... They'll form a group within the Web Incubator Community Group 11:25:11 ... So that by the time it's in a WG it's already in the wild 11:25:20 ... Then WGs aren't working from scratch 11:26:55 [Discussion around future work, life of the WG etc.] 11:29:51 Discussion of difference between OGC and W3C in terms of end of work for WGs. OGC's carry on indefinitely, even in dormant, W3C has to start again 11:30:02 danbri: Can it transition to a CG 11:30:05 phila: Yes of course 11:31:03 RRSAgent, draft minutes 11:31:03 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-sdw-minutes.html phila 11:31:12 Lunchtime everyone 11:31:14 [Adjourned for lunch] 12:07:48 jungbin has joined #sdw 12:10:14 sangchul has joined #sdw 12:11:04 newton has joined #sdw 12:19:25 newton has left #sdw 12:28:42 eparsons has joined #sdw 12:30:55 frans has joined #sdw 12:31:00 ByronCinNZ has joined #sdw 12:34:16 ClemensPortele has joined #sdw 12:34:21 Slowly returning from lunch... 12:34:46 present+ ClemensPortele 12:35:04 jtandy has joined #sdw 12:35:21 present+ jtandy 12:36:54 present+ ByronCinNZ 12:36:56 AndreaPerego has joined #sdw 12:38:16 present+ AndreaPerego 12:40:16 Linda has joined #sdw 12:40:16 billroberts has joined #sdw 12:40:23 present+ billroberts 12:40:27 present+ Linda 12:42:42 ByronCinNZ has joined #sdw 12:43:47 so ... we're just restarting ... 12:44:02 phila has joined #sdw 12:44:09 phila has joined #sdw 12:44:39 in the room we've decided to try to complete the discussion on BP7 about "indirect identification" ... see summary of email thread at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Sep/0096.html 12:45:13 Webex back I hope - can you hear us ByronCinNZ ? 12:45:20 Yes 12:45:44 Perfect thx 12:46:23 Will be jumping over to Orlando shortly for the DCAT metadata OGC. Will return after 12:46:44 for ref, see http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#indirect-identification 12:47:05 scribe:billroberts 12:47:09 scribenick:billroberts 12:47:28 Topic:Indirect Identifiers 12:47:54 BartvanLeeuwen has joined #sdw 12:48:03 present+ BartvanLeeuwen 12:48:10 DanhLePhuoc has joined #sdw 12:48:14 dmckenzie has joined #sdw 12:48:19 pressent+ DanhLePhuoc 12:48:32 jtandy: summarises the ideas of 'Indirect Identification' based on the link above 12:49:02 BernadetteLoscio has joined #sdw 12:49:15 q? 12:49:15 present+ BernadetteLoscio 12:49:20 jtandy: do people recognise this practice as useful and something that happens a lot? 12:49:43 danbri has joined #sdw 12:50:05 kerry has joined #sdw 12:50:38 RRSAgent, draft minutes 12:50:38 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-sdw-minutes.html phila 12:51:52 billroberts Has not experienced any issues with indirect identification 12:52:21 billroberts metadata solves Last updated problem 12:52:45 q+ to say two things: forcing thing vs page-about-it distinction everywhere comes with costs (for publishers and consumers); muddling up things with their descriptions also have costs. Secondly, that the entities+properties model is a kind of spectrum 12:53:22 danbri: schema.org has a vocabulary that is quite agnostic. You could use that rigorously in terms of differentiating identifiers and documents about them 12:53:34 ack danbri 12:53:34 danbri, you wanted to say two things: forcing thing vs page-about-it distinction everywhere comes with costs (for publishers and consumers); muddling up things with their 12:53:37 ... descriptions also have costs. Secondly, that the entities+properties model is a kind of spectrum 12:53:40 ...but you can also use it 'scruffily', using a web page about say Brad Pitt as a way of referring to Brad Pitt 12:54:40 danbri: it was found to be hard to get the idea of distinguising web address and identifier to developers. It would be possible if there was a distinct benefit, but that probably isn't hte case. There isn't the incentive at the moment 12:54:43 roba has joined #sdw 12:55:11 danbri: there is a cost to enforcing the distinction, and there is a cost to mixing them up. So you have to weigh up the pros and cons 12:55:41 ahaller2 has joined #sdw 12:56:00 hi - joined via webex but its behaving differently - not hearing anything and it offering a video session, no mic mute option. 12:56:29 jtandy: can we say that it's common practice to conflate the identifier and the document, and that's ok? 12:56:32 q+ 12:56:34 q+ 12:56:40 eparsons: we can say it's common practice for sure 12:56:47 kerry: but should we endorse it? 12:56:47 q- 12:57:16 phila: it becomes a problem to use an indirect reference, if you use it in the wrong way 12:57:43 ...eg to say the mountain is 374kb, but if you are saying something sensible in that context, then it causes no problems 12:57:49 ack next 12:57:56 q+ to suggest a paradox 12:58:07 RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdw 12:58:17 phila: this is a widely used approach and it generally doesnt' cause problems 12:58:23 q- 12:58:31 q+ 12:58:37 ack next 12:59:17 AndreaPerego: if your use case doesn't need the distinction, then don't do it 12:59:31 q+ 12:59:35 q- 12:59:55 ack next 13:00:18 q+ 13:00:37 All I was going to say: at this relatively early stage, when a given thing doesn't have a lot of machine readable Web descriptions, strict separation of thing-vs-description identifier is overkill. But once we have more adoption it may prove increasingly valuable. 13:00:43 billroberts depends upon context - relies on human - but thats ok 13:00:44 billroberts: We're agreeing that it depends on context and we're relying on the human operator to apply that context 13:00:49 q 13:00:52 q+ 13:00:56 q? 13:01:31 ack next 13:02:05 +q 13:02:10 ack next 13:02:16 q+ to talk about dumb strings 13:02:26 frans:we can probably assume that people won't generally be confused about spatial things - i.e. they won't think it's a document 13:02:52 ClemensPortele: but we then may need to distinguish Spatial Thing and Feature? 13:03:09 q? 13:03:47 kerry:how do we convey to a user of the data what we mean by a URI? 13:04:01 ack next 13:04:48 sangchul has joined #sdw 13:05:04 roba: one use case is citing an object. In that case you want an identifier for the thing, not a representation of it. If the data provider wants his representation to be cited, then you might have to make the distinction 13:05:31 q+ 13:05:32 ...one possible way to do that is the URI redirection approach. 13:05:54 jtandy: do you mean something like a 303 redirect to a WFS endpoint? 13:06:18 roba: doesn't matter too much what you redirect to, you can just use the test on whether it is redirected or not 13:06:35 ...it's like referencing a geometry not a feature 13:06:40 q+ 13:06:52 q+ 13:07:08 zakim, close queue 13:07:08 ok, eparsons, the speaker queue is closed 13:07:31 jtandy: tries to summarise and play back Rob's point. If you do redirect, you've separated out the thing and the representation 13:07:53 roba: not quite as strong as that. 13:08:36 roba: if it doesn't redirect, you could tell that the URL is not safe to be an identifier 13:08:43 ahaller2 has joined #sdw 13:09:13 jtandy: how much context do we need? how to express it? 13:09:45 roba: one approach is to get the context by dereferencing it, but I don't think we can say that is a best practice 13:10:01 ack next 13:10:04 jtandy: so, as Dan says, we're all blundering around 13:11:35 DanhLePhuoc: a data snippet can be valid and useful without having an http URI 13:12:03 ...so could use non-http identifiers (URNs eg) 13:12:32 jtandy: I think we want to recommend HTTP identifiers, even if they don't resolve on the web 13:13:30 DanhLePhuoc: using identifiers that are not HTTP means that you don't have the cost of setting up a web server to allow dereferencing 13:13:32 ack next 13:13:33 phila, you wanted to talk about dumb strings 13:13:40 q- 13:14:08 phila: URIs should be treated as dumb strings, you can't infer any meaning from them 13:14:35 ack next 13:15:53 q+ 13:15:53 billroberts redirects not practical for mass market users 13:16:02 ack next 13:16:23 zakim, open queue 13:16:23 ok, eparsons, the speaker queue is open 13:16:51 kerry: also uncomfortable about using the redirect behaviour as a way of inferring context 13:17:21 chunming has joined #sdw 13:17:50 roba: I think that's ok, but a best practice should be to use redirects. If you are using a representation URL you need to be clear it's not an identifier 13:18:28 jtandy: trying to summarise - you shouldn't be obliged to separate identifier and document, unless you see a good reason to do so 13:19:16 roba: a good reason to do so is to make it clear to users 13:21:46 jtandy: will park the discussion on Spatial Thing and Feature 13:23:02 Topic: Bart's demonstration of linking to WFS 13:23:41 BartvanLeeuwen: we're working for emergency services in cross-border or cross-discipline contexts 13:24:07 ...there is more and more spatial data being shared between these partners in ad hoc ways 13:24:29 ...For example, water boards collaborating with fire departments on flood evacuation plans 13:24:48 ...The water board is opening up its SDI for the fire department 13:25:20 ...For example the fire department comes across information about a critical section of a dike (i.e. high risk of a flood) 13:26:04 ...misinterpretation between the two organisations of what was meant by 'critical'. Water board had a different idea to the fire department 13:28:51 ...[Bart shows a GIS WFS system with attributes of objects on the map] 13:29:13 ...so we suggest having a rdf:seeAlso attribute on all WFS systems, to link to a place to store more information 13:29:33 ...Fire department is happy with an extra column in their system, but don't want to worry about supporting all kinds of formats 13:30:32 ...following the seeAlso link goes to a Linked Data page about the thing, which in turn can link to definitions of concepts and other terminology 13:31:09 ...so this is a simple and generic way of linking a WFS to a Linked Data representation of the objects 13:31:46 ...We use standard linked data principles for dereferencing the URIs to get data 13:31:50 jungbin has joined #sdw 13:33:07 ...Example showing a map of an incident, with icons to represent different situations, (eg a flaming icon to indicate a fire) 13:33:22 ...this approach allows icons to be connected to definitions of what they mean 13:34:11 ...and makes it possible to swap in different sets of icons for the same meaning, to make it familiar to someone from a different organisation 13:34:21 sangchul has joined #sdw 13:35:33 ... From the opposite perspective, there is currently no standard way to link from the Linked Data representation to the feature on the map 13:35:51 ClemensPortele: there could be just a WFS request that returns the feature 13:36:17 q+ 13:36:18 q? 13:36:18 BartvanLeeuwen: Jeremy and I have discussed this as a possible best practice 13:37:00 jtandy: so in essence, you are supplementing an existing SDI by putting one column in the database that links to a Linked Data representation, where all the semantic integration can take place - but you can still display it on a map 13:37:10 jtandy: beautiful in its simplicity 13:37:10 q+ to say yay 13:37:35 jtandy: (1) (maybe controversial) web mapping is explicitly out of scope - is this web mapping? 13:37:42 ack next 13:37:47 consensus: no this isn't web mapping, it's about linkability 13:38:29 jtandy: (2) I'm minded of discussions back in Amersfoort, where billroberts mentioned some hybrid approaches using triple stores alongside other things 13:39:20 ...Bart's work seems a similar kind of thing 13:39:23 q+ 13:40:23 re embedding a link, of course the issue is whether the uri should be for a specific information resource or for an id which should dereference :-) There's your use case to consider 13:40:26 q- later 13:40:26 ack next 13:40:27 danbri, you wanted to say yay 13:40:27 jtandy: this seems to fit under the heading of data access - different ways of getting to the info 13:40:36 q+ 13:40:38 jungbin has joined #sdw 13:41:38 ack next 13:41:39 danbri: many examples that we were talking about earlier were very sparse, so not much benefit for the effort. This seems much more obviously beneficial as you can link together lots of things all at once 13:41:46 q- later 13:42:09 q+ 13:42:55 q- later 13:43:00 q+ 13:43:20 frans: can understand the perspective of the water boards on not wanting to do lots of work on detailed definition. But there is software that makes setting up a WFS pretty easy. If people act on our BPs then maybe publishing the supporting data will be easy in future too 13:43:53 ack next 13:44:08 q- later 13:44:29 Linda: thinking about how to fit this into the document. Is this a new BP, or a possible approach to implementing an existing BP? 13:44:39 ...could maybe fit in BP11 about convenience APIs? 13:44:51 eparsons: this is more about the linkability best practice 13:45:56 ack next 13:45:59 q+ 13:46:13 q- later 13:46:42 roba: although I couldn't see the demo, I think I got the idea: this is a general use case of embedding a link to information about an object in another context 13:46:50 q? 13:47:02 zakim, close queue 13:47:02 ok, eparsons, the speaker queue is closed 13:47:12 ...so what kind of link do you embed in your data? a link to an identifier or another resource? 13:48:44 roba: probably need a standard practice here so that people know what to expect. It should probably be the identifier 13:49:00 q? 13:50:44 roba: in that case the identifier can then link to various representations. Otherwise the implementer has to make a choice of which kind of representation to link to 13:53:41 ack next 13:53:51 phila: points out that in Bart's example, there is both information about the thing and information about the document about the thing. So this example makes the distinction between thing and representation 13:54:50 ClemensPortele: this example is mainly about easy data access. In QGIS you just have a string about the attribute. In the LD version, you can link off to definitions of the terminology 13:54:50 do you want t force all WFS to use exactly the same set of choices as to how to link to different resources and additional information - or make that the URI dereferencing practice? 13:55:29 ClemensPortele: it doesn't naturally fit in one of the existing best practices 13:56:35 ...not sure if it's 'best' or 'common' or 'emerging' 13:57:10 ack next 13:57:32 q? 13:57:47 best does not imply common, but if common works its probably "best". Where "common" is missing or doesnt meet identified needs best is closer to "good" 13:58:32 ack next 13:58:56 billroberts: I think it probably fits into our existing best practices on linkability and on making links 13:59:21 ClemensPortele: it's important to make it self-descriptive 13:59:30 Linda: maybe there is a DWBP we could link to 13:59:59 phila: point of process. Is there anything proprietary in Bart's work? 14:00:05 BartvanLeeuwen: no 14:00:11 its obviously about linkability - and if the practice link is to something via a URI that dereferences to a document that provides metadata, then it meets several BP cases 14:00:13 zakim, open queue 14:00:13 ok, eparsons, the speaker queue is open 14:00:58 ByronCinNZ has joined #sdw 14:01:34 BartvanLeeuwen: would like documentation of which attribute to use for this, to try to make it more standardised 14:01:57 jtandy: different applications might require different data models 14:02:10 ...so not sure we should specify always rdf:seeAlso or whatever 14:02:20 I think is this one: https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#ChooseRightFormalizationLevel 14:02:53 eparsons: this is good because you don't need to do anything difficult but has many benefits 14:03:27 scribe: ClemensPortele 14:03:33 scribenick: ClemensPortele 14:05:45 jtandy: next topics: General BP issues, Narrative, Plan for next draft 14:06:33 TOPIC: Are we meeting the needs of practitioners- if not, how can we improve? 14:06:59 jtandy: not writing BPs for managers, but for those doing the work 14:07:00 q+ 14:07:01 q+ 14:07:03 q+ 14:07:11 ... are we meeting the needs? 14:08:17 frans: No. Related to BP on geometry, etc. Many options to choose from, but no real guidance how to do things 14:09:00 jtandy: agrees, we don't say how to make the choice 14:09:34 sangchul has joined #sdw 14:09:35 ... Unlikely there is a single choice that fits everywhere. Example: GeoJSON. 14:10:15 q- 14:10:17 ... Struggles how to introduce the questions to ask yourself in the BP text. 14:11:07 q+ 14:11:31 frans: Can we also identify the characteristics a good format has? 14:12:03 ack next 14:12:11 jtandy: Probably difficult, depends on the perspective and use case. Support for one or multiple CRS is an example. 14:12:47 eparsons: We may be meeting the needs of the wrong partitioners, ie. the GIS community, less the "Web community" 14:12:55 q+ 14:13:46 ... distinguish implementation recommendations / options based on the specific needs 14:14:22 ... what meets the 99% of the cases, let's make that the default 14:14:31 ack next 14:14:48 Linda: are Web developers still in the audience, not so clear from the current text 14:14:56 (yes they are) 14:15:48 ByronCinNZ: A couple of things that may be missing: 14:16:35 ... wider meaning of spatial beyond geospatial (but not really addressed in the text) 14:18:35 ... clarify gaps that are relevant for bridging between SDI and Web developer community, e.g. spatial accuracy depending on the CRS/projection 14:19:19 jtandy: I.e., provide more help on how to pick the right datum/projection? 14:19:25 ByronCinNZ: Yes 14:19:35 ack next 14:19:35 jtandy: Any similar topics? 14:20:02 eparsons: Publish a raster or vector data? 14:20:20 kerry has joined #sdw 14:20:22 ack next 14:21:51 billroberts: responds to frans "what is a good format" question: what will likely be used. So probably providing multiple options, e.g. GeoJSON for Leaflet and Shapefile for their GIS 14:22:17 ack next 14:22:20 ... publish once, use many times 14:23:16 frans: happy to read in the current BP to focus on the use of the data and keep the users in mind 14:24:07 ... points to limited choice of data types, which is currently missing for geometry 14:24:24 ... we should work towards a single way of expressing geometry 14:24:55 q+ to pick up on non-geo spatial 14:25:03 q+ 14:25:18 ... Also, current text is too much about geospatial data, less useful for use cases like architecture / BIM etc. 14:25:35 ack next 14:25:36 phila, you wanted to pick up on non-geo spatial 14:26:38 phila: content depends on contributors. Asks Chris from the BIM domain ... 14:27:26 sangchul has joined #sdw 14:28:17 Chis(?): Welcomes guidance. CRS guidance relevant and different CRSs will be used (e.g. inside the building). There are open questions how to do this best. 14:29:01 ack next 14:29:22 phila: Probably GeoFencing group did not consider the case where the CRS changes between two different polygons. 14:29:29 q? 14:30:08 BartvanLeeuwen: Have we outreached to the "Web developer" community and asked them, if it is useful what we are doing? 14:30:50 phila: Trying to reach as many people and communities as possible 14:31:18 eparsons: Yes, what we do depends on the people who turn up 14:32:24 q+ to talk about this evening http://www.meetup.com/GeeksIn-Lisbon/events/233972259/ 14:32:29 ack next 14:32:31 phila, you wanted to talk about this evening http://www.meetup.com/GeeksIn-Lisbon/events/233972259/ 14:32:37 dmckenzie: We need to identify and contact the communities where we want feedback. Can use OGC communications channels. 14:32:37 -> http://www.meetup.com/GeeksIn-Lisbon/events/233972259/ Dev Meetup this evening 14:33:29 phila: that might have been an opportunity to pitch our work and get feedback 14:34:00 dmckenzie: many of these will be very regional, so hard to cover this broadly 14:34:42 billroberts: the extra day at Amersfoort may be a good example to follow 14:35:36 dmckenzie: OGC University DWG may be a channel for outreach 14:36:09 ... or other DWGs that link to larger communities 14:36:40 coffee break until 14:50 14:36:48 coffee break until 15:50 sorry 14:53:13 jtandy has joined #sdw 14:54:29 frans has joined #sdw 14:55:30 ahaller2 has joined #sdw 14:56:54 present+ 14:56:54 TOPIC: "How do we kick the RDF habit?" 14:56:58 present+ jtandy 14:58:08 jtandy: you can use Linked Data in many representations, not just using RDF 14:58:25 q+ 14:58:53 frans: since SDWBP is an extension of DWBP, how is DWBP? 14:59:00 audio please. Sounds like an interesting conversation 14:59:00 ack next 14:59:06 jtandy: not heavy, but many of the examples use RDF 14:59:51 q+ 14:59:57 q? 14:59:59 kerry: use of link type registry is one example that can help as it is general 15:00:59 jtandy: yes, publish semantics in the registry of IANA 15:01:06 q? 15:01:20 ... temporal relationships there is a proposal discussed with Simon Cox 15:01:34 q+ 15:01:54 ... spatial relationships - there has been no feedback on which of the options to use 15:02:36 ... on topology, direction, distance 15:02:38 ahaller2 has joined #sdw 15:02:46 +1 in principle 15:02:48 (general agreement) 15:02:55 IANA Link Relations: http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/ 15:02:55 q+ 15:02:59 Linda: but we need to agree on the list 15:03:04 ack next 15:03:23 AndreaPerego: have checked, if anything is there? 15:03:31 jtandy: Yes, nothing there 15:04:11 q+ 15:04:14 AndreaPerego: May introduce overhead on the publisher side. But has advantage that it can also be used directly in HTML 15:05:16 newton has joined #sdw 15:05:20 jtandy: Whatever we do, there will be some burden on the publisher, currently it simply is just no option that a publisher could use 15:05:38 BernadetteLoscio has joined #sdw 15:05:44 ack next 15:05:47 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:05:47 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-sdw-minutes.html eparsons 15:05:51 AndreaPerego: maybe the profile link relation could be an option 15:06:40 kerry: it is important to capture the more informal spatial relationships that are used on the social level 15:07:11 Definition of the "profile" link relation (from IANA registry): "Identifying that a resource representation conforms to a certain profile, without affecting the non-profile semantics of the resource representation." 15:07:14 ... ie the topological ones are not the most important ones 15:07:57 ... focus on those that are used in common language 15:07:58 ack next 15:09:05 frans: why do we want to "kick the RDF habit"? 15:09:46 q+ to comment on Fransis's point 15:09:57 audio please 15:10:03 RaulGarciaCastro has joined #sdw 15:10:07 s/Fransi/Fransie/ 15:10:14 q+ 15:10:24 jtandy: if we focus on RDF people would quickly conclude the document does not apply to them 15:11:13 Linda: we have a link to the Linked Data BP this document becomes very RDF centric 15:11:43 RDF is a practice - perhaps best for some things but not the only option. 15:12:09 s/RDF/using RDF/ 15:12:23 jtandy: two schools of people, a) Linked Data must use RDF and b) takes a more relaxed position. Like the BP document... 15:12:57 jtandy: Need to use examples that not other approaches, GML, GeoJSON, maybe OData, etc 15:13:11 ack next 15:13:12 AndreaPerego, you wanted to comment on Fransis's point 15:13:18 q+ 15:13:24 s/not other/are based on other/ 15:13:51 dmckenzie has joined #sdw 15:13:56 ack next 15:14:16 AndreaPerego: (sorry, missed that) 15:15:27 ack next 15:15:29 BartvanLeeuwen: Mention of RDF is a religious thing. People reject something just based on the reference to RDF 15:15:43 q+ re RDF 15:16:01 s/(sorry, missed that)/Just to say that link relations are already used in HTML documents, e.g., to link to stylesheets. So, this makes it easier to use them to express also other relationships./ 15:16:07 phila has joined #sdw 15:16:47 BernadetteLoscio: DWBP had similar discussion. Introduction has discussion of the relationship and avoid specific focus. But many examples are in ttl. 15:16:57 ack next 15:16:58 danbri, you wanted to discuss RDF 15:17:08 q+ 15:17:11 q+ 15:17:55 ack next 15:18:28 danbri: Have used RDF in other groups, but without making a big fuss about it 15:18:45 q? 15:18:49 RRSAgent, draft minutes 15:18:49 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-sdw-minutes.html phila 15:18:50 q+ 15:19:14 ack next 15:19:15 BP doc tries to present no bias to RDF here: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#linked-data 15:19:27 frans: having other examples is a good idea and the Linked Data text should state that it is not abut RDF 15:19:50 DanhLePhuoc has joined #sdw 15:19:55 jtandy: Chapter 7 already does this, see link above 15:20:17 q+ 15:20:18 ack next 15:20:43 q+ 15:20:51 billroberts: you want web identifiers and you want linking, then you are nearly at RDF 15:20:52 ack next 15:21:30 ClemensPortele : RDF point was mine - current draft better 15:21:44 ack next 15:21:45 present+ DanhLePhuoc 15:22:10 present- BernaLoscio 15:22:19 present+ newton 15:22:47 q+ 15:22:51 ack next 15:22:53 eparsons: Both the GIS and Web developer communities consider RDF a "nasty beast". So not highlighting RDF will help communicating the BP 15:23:13 present+ AndreaPerego 15:23:23 jtandy: general consensus and going in the right direction 15:23:29 RRSAgent, draft minutes 15:23:29 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-sdw-minutes.html phila 15:23:39 present+ ClemensPortele 15:24:54 jtandy: how can we address kerrys point about the spatial relations. Can someone propose a list of spatial relationships? 15:25:01 q+ 15:25:11 present+ BernadetteLoscio 15:25:28 q+ to ask about wikipedia infoboxes 15:25:46 phila: can we just register the ones from GeoSPARQL? 15:25:56 jtandy: Which of the three sets? 15:26:08 ... and these are only the topological ones 15:26:26 q+ 15:26:35 eparsons: The directional and distance related ones are more of a challenge 15:26:53 ack next 15:27:01 kerry: Some of them are context dependent (near/far) 15:27:07 q+ to talk about IANA Links don't need to be in a W3C standard, and to ask DanBri whether he can help 15:27:11 ack next 15:27:12 ericP, you wanted to ask about wikipedia infoboxes 15:27:35 ericP: could the wikipedia boxes provide any insight? 15:27:41 (possibly) 15:27:55 jtandy: is there a link to more information? 15:28:14 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Geography_infobox_templates 15:28:17 q+ 15:28:26 ack next 15:28:27 phila, you wanted to talk about IANA Links don't need to be in a W3C standard, and to ask DanBri whether he can help 15:28:28 q+ to ask about progress on relating things to geometry 15:29:06 phila: topological ones could easily be added by contacting IANA / Mark Nottingham to add them 15:29:16 q- 15:29:34 ... for the others, is there something that we can point to? 15:29:49 q+ 15:30:14 q? 15:30:15 danbri: we could also add them to schema.org 15:30:36 q- 15:31:25 phila: how widely implemented are the relationships? 15:32:05 eparsons: typically widely implemented by GIS, so we would need to analyse what has been implemented in tools 15:32:13 q+ 15:32:26 ack next 15:32:27 billroberts, you wanted to ask about progress on relating things to geometry 15:33:07 +1 to dim[B(a)∩I(b)]=1& jtandy: and how do we identify the directional / distance-related ones? any sources to use as a basis? 15:33:19 q- 15:34:05 q+ 15:34:07 billroberts: related to the work on the spatial ontology 15:35:08 billroberts: can schema.org help? 15:35:31 q- 15:35:32 danbri: there are existing properties that relate objects to geometries 15:37:06 q+ 15:37:13 ack next 15:37:13 PROPOSED: submit topological GeoSPARQL Simple Feature relations to the IANA link relation registry. 15:37:47 frans: there could a difference between the spatial relation of spatial things or their geometries 15:38:24 eparsons: the topological ones depend on the existence of geometries 15:38:55 q? 15:39:17 q+ 15:39:42 q+ 15:40:09 ack next 15:40:17 eparsons: ... the topological ones are always computable from the geometries 15:40:49 ack me 15:41:09 ack next 15:41:23 q+ to talk about Young's Calculus 15:41:26 ericP: and how about the more fuzzy relationships 15:41:47 ack next 15:41:48 phila, you wanted to talk about Young's Calculus 15:41:49 q+ 15:41:53 DanhLePhuoc: (sorry, I missed that) 15:42:10 q+ 15:42:31 RRSAgent, pointer? 15:42:31 See http://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-sdw-irc#T15-42-31 15:42:46 phila: if we have the list of well-defined relationships for topo ones, should we do this for the temporal ones (Allan's calculus), too? 15:42:56 ack next 15:43:20 there is some relationship can be calculate without geometric information, for instance, located in, part of, can be computed via transitive reasoning 15:43:41 q+ to mention 'equals' 15:44:17 jtandy: I can make topologial assertions without geometry. 15:44:20 ack next 15:44:20 phila, see "We don't nitpic about whether they're alive, dead, real, or imaginary. " in http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_Person 15:44:31 eparsons: but you cannot prove them 15:45:04 kerry: the informal ones are more valuable to the formal ones 15:45:20 +1 tp both 15:45:36 ack next 15:45:37 danbri, you wanted to mention 'equals' 15:46:19 q+ to mention https://jena.apache.org/documentation/query/spatial-query.html 15:46:26 DanhLePhuoc: only one seems only useful in a mathematical sense (equal), the others also make sense in a colloquial sense 15:46:41 s/DanhLePhuoc/danbri/ 15:46:45 ack next 15:46:46 kerry, you wanted to mention https://jena.apache.org/documentation/query/spatial-query.html 15:48:25 jtandy: It would be a well-defined topic to make a proposal for the link relations. Any volunteers? 15:49:28 phila: where to put, in schema.org, W3C space? Should it also go to the BP, too? 15:49:57 ... IANA wants to reference something stable 15:50:28 q? 15:50:35 q+ to propose email 15:50:44 ack next 15:50:46 ericP, you wanted to propose email 15:51:12 ericP: simplest could be an email to the mailing list 15:51:31 ack next 15:51:44 q+ kerry 15:51:47 ack next 15:52:26 kerry: this might be a starting point: https://jena.apache.org/documentation/query/spatial-query.html 15:52:50 And schema.org has https://schema.org/containedInPlace I saw 15:53:44 scribe:RaulGarciaCastro 15:54:45 jtandy: we want to include: computable relationships and assertive relations (not necessarily based on computations) 15:54:54 jtandy: … who can take the lead for doing that? 15:55:20 eparsons: what has to be done? 15:55:45 jtandy: name + description 15:56:19 -> https://www.w3.org/ns/csvw An excellent example of a namespace document 15:56:26 eparsons: I take the lead 15:56:37 -> https://www.w3.org/ns/ldp An adequate example of a namespace document 15:57:11 jtandy: there is no best practice for these relationships; there is a gap there 15:57:11 (though it does introduce some convention for properties of a class) 15:59:12 jtandy: … could this be part of the namespaces work? 15:59:14 (yes) 16:00:19 q+ 16:00:31 jtandy: how to use spatial relationships for uncertain boundaries? There is a common practice to do it 16:00:38 ack k 16:00:39 ack next 16:01:18 q+ 16:01:37 action eparsons to work with chairs to define spatial relations namespace document 16:01:37 Created ACTION-198 - Work with chairs to define spatial relations namespace document [on Ed Parsons - due 2016-09-26]. 16:01:51 q+ 16:02:02 q+ to ask if time management mechanisms can be used here 16:02:10 kerry: we can handle it talking about fuzzy relationships 16:02:42 kerry: … and I don’t even need to knwo the geometry 16:03:28 ack next 16:03:30 eparsons: sometimes there are things with no geometry associated 16:04:35 roba: relationships depend on the use case; we need a mechanism to specify what you need in your context 16:04:37 ack next 16:05:18 frans: if we relax the relationships to things without geometry, anyone can make a statement about anything 16:05:35 ack next 16:05:37 ericP, you wanted to ask if time management mechanisms can be used here 16:06:39 ericP: you should expect people acting in good faith (a trust issue) 16:07:28 jtandy: some expert should help me with the examples of spatil relationships 16:08:18 s/spatil/spatial/ 16:08:22 q+ to clarify scope 16:08:38 q- 16:08:52 q+ 16:09:29 q+ to ask BernadetteLoscio and newton their thoughts on the usefulness of the running example 16:09:40 jtandy: bill, what are your thoughts about producing statistical data? 16:09:43 ack next 16:10:27 AndreaPerego: When are we talking about SpatialThing vs Feature? 16:10:44 eparsons: let’s plan now with everyone here 16:11:22 ack next 16:11:23 phila, you wanted to ask BernadetteLoscio and newton their thoughts on the usefulness of the running example 16:11:42 phila: Is narrative important? 16:11:52 ack me 16:12:10 BernadetteLoscio: The running example was useful, even if in some cases it was difficult to come up with it 16:12:40 jtandy: We were thinking on a flooding example, but it is complex 16:13:11 ahaller2 has joined #sdw 16:13:52 jtandy: … I don’t expect the best practices to be used alone, but with other documents 16:14:06 q+ 16:14:12 regrets+ chris little 16:14:22 regrets+ josh lieberman 16:14:30 eparsons: Maybe we could reduce the scope in the narrative? 16:15:23 ack next 16:15:31 jtandy: Some answers that the narrative is supposed to answer are already answered in the document 16:16:01 frans: How about using the narrative in the examples to give coherence? Right now it is separated 16:16:19 q+ 16:16:30 ack next 16:16:47 q+ 16:16:57 eparsons: Maybe we can prioritize the best practices 16:17:25 eparsons: … trying to include everything makes things complex 16:19:38 billroberts: have been trying to find population statistics and examples, and this raised a number of questions that can be performed (e.g., is the population data in machine-readable form?) 16:19:40 BernadetteLoscio has joined #sdw 16:20:28 ack next 16:20:34 billroberts: … this can give hints to data publishers 16:21:05 ClemensPortele: If you remove the narrative and put it into the examples it may not be son convincing 16:21:11 s/son/so/ 16:21:56 q+ 16:22:00 jtandy: how do we plan net steps? (will think on the narrative for tomorrow) 16:22:01 ack next 16:22:15 q+ to be annoying 16:22:30 Linda: how far is the current document for the next working draft? 16:23:01 ack next 16:23:02 phila, you wanted to be annoying 16:23:14 +1 it has moved a lot from previous version 16:23:24 +1 16:23:42 phila: The document is already very good; please publish it as soon as possible 16:23:57 phila: … feel free to take things out 16:24:18 phila: … right now it is more than expected 16:24:55 eparsons: publishing it is the way of getting more people involved 16:25:58 phila: get what you got in a published document (even with open issues) in a week or two 16:27:48 jtandy: Pending things: update the glossary with missing definitions (anyone?), bibliography, open issues, changelog… 16:29:17 phila: I will help with the document (formatting, language, etc.) 16:29:39 http://pending.webschemas.org/GeospatialGeometry (based on https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/blob/sdo-callisto/data/ext/pending/issue-1375.rdfa (based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DE-9IM )). Various 'deliberate mistakes' included to check if anyone reads it. 16:29:54 billrobe_ has joined #sdw 16:32:19 AndreaPerego: Do we need the notion of a spatial thing? Not in every case we need to differentiate between real thing, geometry, etc. 16:32:43 josh lieberman was working on an abstract spatial ontology - i think we need this to be a lightweight core 16:33:22 ...updating geosparql may end up with something too complex ? 16:33:34 q+ to re-iterate SpatialThing was from a random chat 16:34:16 ack next 16:34:17 danbri, you wanted to re-iterate SpatialThing was from a random chat 16:34:35 jtandy: In the document we already state that a spatial thing can be different things 16:35:57 danbri: the origin came due to trying to adopt CYC 16:36:10 AndreaPerego: And people have used it since them 16:36:15 s/them/then/ 16:36:23 danbri: We can still change it 16:37:51 jtandy: The concept of spatial thing for representing things with extent is good for us 16:38:23 jtandy: the GeoSPARQL ontology is being refactored 16:39:09 jtandy: … anyway, review the document to see if the current use of the term makes you happy 16:39:38 Linda: we have reviewed the document 16:40:38 jtandy: Ensure that the glossary is consistent with the wiki (anyone?) 16:42:13 jtandy: … it is just a compilation thing, no need to write new content 16:42:47 https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#requirements 16:43:44 re basic geo ns, it came from a https://www.w3.org/wiki/ScheduledTopicChat meeting. https://www.w3.org/wiki/GeoInfo which has 404 cyc reference -> http://www.cyc.com/cycdoc/vocab/geography-vocab.html - earlier version, https://web.archive.org/web/20070203153714/http://cyc.com/cycdoc/vocab/geography-vocab.html 16:43:50 -> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#requirements BP cross ref 16:44:59 so yes, SpatialThing came via Cyc, e.g. #$SpatialThing-Localized 16:45:20 http://sw.opencyc.org/concept/Mx4rvVjpUZwpEbGdrcN5Y29ycA 16:45:22 newton: I made a script to build the cross-reference table for our best practices document; I can help with this document 16:46:30 q+ to confirm SpatialThing was indeed Cyc-inspired, see http://sw.opencyc.org/concept/Mx4rvVjpUZwpEbGdrcN5Y29ycA (also to report http://pending.webschemas.org/GeospatialGeometry  ) 16:46:46 Action billrobe_ to check Glossary for completeness 16:46:47 Error finding 'billrobe_'. You can review and register nicknames at . 16:46:53 ack next 16:46:54 danbri, you wanted to confirm SpatialThing was indeed Cyc-inspired, see http://sw.opencyc.org/concept/Mx4rvVjpUZwpEbGdrcN5Y29ycA (also to report 16:46:54 ... http://pending.webschemas.org/GeospatialGeometry  ) 16:50:36 danbri: went through the wikipedia infoboxes for relationships properties and there are proposals in schema.org; but nothing has been assessed by experts 16:52:39 jtandy: Regarding bibliography, proper references in ReSpec must be found (in yellow) 16:52:48 phila: I can manage that 16:52:54 action: phila to help improve the bibliography for the BP doc 16:52:54 Created ACTION-199 - Help improve the bibliography for the bp doc [on Phil Archer - due 2016-09-26]. 16:54:56 q+ to talk about tomorrow agenda before we leave 16:55:06 ack next 16:55:08 kerry, you wanted to talk about tomorrow agenda before we leave 16:57:49 phila: I can help in placing the icons for the benefits 16:59:02 jtandy: we will try to have a stable release in two weeks from Wednesday (15th October) so it can be published the following week 17:00:13 danbri has joined #sdw 17:00:20 jtandy: Thanks for all the comments 17:00:20 @phila, to answer your http://schema.org/ process question - my actions fall under project webmaster role documented in http://schema.org/docs/howwework.html#webmaster  17:00:21 q+ to ask about the agenda for the SDW workshop @ INSPIRE 2016 (Sep, 30th) http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/events/conferences/inspire_2016/page/wsl 17:00:41 ack next 17:00:42 AndreaPerego, you wanted to ask about the agenda for the SDW workshop @ INSPIRE 2016 (Sep, 30th) http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/events/conferences/inspire_2016/page/wsl 17:01:12 AndreaPerego: do we want feedback from INSPIRE in the best practices? 17:01:42 jtandy: tell them about the new future draft so they can give feedback 17:01:56 AndreaPerego: We must highlight what we want feedback on 17:02:11 AndreaPerego: … the workshop is next week on Friday 17:02:28 jtandy: We can talk about it 17:03:10 eparsons: I can present if you give me the content 17:03:25 RRSAgent, draft minutes 17:03:25 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-sdw-minutes.html phila 17:03:28 topic: Agenda for tomorrow 17:05:14 kerry: (reviews agenda) 17:06:22 phila: There is the AC meeting tomorrow at 15:00 17:07:15 phila: … it may affect the meeting 17:07:42 RRSAgent, draft minutes 17:07:42 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-sdw-minutes.html phila 17:07:49 meeting closed 17:07:53 RRSAgent, draft minutes 17:07:53 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-sdw-minutes.html phila 17:09:13 ahaller2 has joined #sdw 17:10:11 Hotel Vila Gale Opera: https://goo.gl/maps/Vjo86vEc6Z62 19:03:28 newton has joined #sdw 21:09:02 newton has joined #sdw 22:03:17 newton has joined #sdw 22:24:57 Zakim has left #sdw 22:37:32 danbri has joined #sdw 22:38:37 ahaller2 has joined #sdw 23:13:45 newton has joined #sdw 23:25:41 newton has joined #sdw 23:29:25 newton has joined #sdw