See also: IRC log
<scribe> chair: Kerry
<scribe> scribe: phila
<scribe> scribeNick: phila
<kerry> http://www.w3.org/2016/10/05-sdw-minutes.html
PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/10/05-sdw-minutes.html
<eparsons> Not there sorry
<kerry> +1
+1
<ScottSimmons> +0
<roba> +0
<joshlieberman> ^me^joshlieberman
<kerry> https://www.w3.org/2016/10/05-sdw-minutes.html
<jtandy> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/10/05-sdw-minutes.html
<billroberts> 0 - missed last call
<AndreaPerego> +1
<kerry> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
<joshlieberman> +1
-> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call Patent Call
<scribe> agenda: www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161019
kerry: Spring in the south,
autumn in the north
... This willbe the consistent plenary time as defined by
UTC
kerry: Please have a look at the
UCR
http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html
... Any comments? I don't think there have been any changes for
a while
... We don't have Frans here
... But it was brought to everyone's attention 2 weeks ago and
Frans has made it clear that he's happy.
ChrisLittle: I did pass some
comments to Frans and he has incorpoirated them
... They w ere minimal typos etc.
jtandy: Thanks to Frans for excellent work!
<AndreaPerego> +1
eparsons: here here
<kerry> +1
<joshlieberman> +!
<joshlieberman> +1
<ChrisLittle> +1 to Frans
RESOLUTION: Vote of thanks for Frans
<AndreaPerego> +1
<ChrisLittle> +1
<eparsons> +1
<ByronCinNZ> +1
<jtandy> +1
<ScottSimmons> +1
<kerry> +1
PROPOSED: That the current
editors' draft of the UCR be published as a new Note/Discussion
paper, noting that we believe this will be the last iteration
of this document
... That the current editors' draft of the UCR be published as
a new Note/Discussion paper, noting that we believe this will
be the last iteration of this document
http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html
<roba> +1
<eparsons> +1
<ChrisLittle> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<joshlieberman> +1
<kerry> +1
<ScottSimmons> +1
<ByronCinNZ> +1
<billroberts> +1
<jtandy> +1
<jtandy> =1
<jtandy> +1
RESOLUTION: That the current editors' draft of the UCR be published as a new Note/Discussion paper, noting that we believe this will be the last iteration of this document http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html
<kerry> cheer!
phila: Just checking, this now becomes R2
ScottSimmons: Confirms that it the next one in the sequence
<ScottSimmons> confirmed that R2 is the next one in the sequence
jtandy: I would be keen to make sure that someone who put effort in for early drafts is still credited
phila: +1 That will happen.
<jtandy> +1
phila: My suggestion is to say Alejandro Llaves, formerly of UPM (early drafts)
<jtandy> +!
<eparsons> Kudos to the editors !
<AndreaPerego> +1
kerry: Thanks the editors for all the work to get to this stage. I believe AndreaPerego had a comment
<kerry> +1
<ByronCinNZ> +1
jtandy: AndreaPerego Put in a suggestion a few days ago and I've only just merged that.
<AndreaPerego> Just an editorial change.
jtandy: I thought that was editorial only so I added it.
<ChrisLittle> +1
phila: You said that there are some current 404 URLs
<kerry> phila: are there 404 urls? they have to go
phila: Can't have 404 links from a doc in /TR space
AndreaPerego: It's code snippets
in spatial representation type
... But they're in code snippets, not links
jtandy: So in BP1, you have a code block that isn't an anchor. Just a URL, not a clickable link
phila: e.g.
http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/metadata-codelist/SpatialRepresentationTypeCode/vector
... Asks for status of these
AndreaPerego: These are ISO 19115 code lists, not yet added to the INSPIRE registry. Not yet added but are expected to be
phila: The note makes that
clear
... So no problem, thank you
<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to note that I've tried to convert to US-en and the glossary wasn't updated
<AndreaPerego> The note: "The URIs in the example, denoting the spatial representation type, are part of a register yet to be added to the INSPIRE Registry. Therefore, they currently do not resolve.".
jtandy: First of all.. I have
attempted to convert to simplified English
... May be some English but feel free to make that change and
merge
phila: Ack
jtandy: We hoped to get an update
on the glossary. Looks like Bill has been side-tracked
... That will be in the next iteration
<billroberts> Yes, sorry on lack of progress on glossary. I am still happy to do it and will aim to have it ready for the next version
jtandy: Doesn't affect the gestalt of the working draft
kerry: Quick comment - I find this new version of ReSpec doesn't always load properly. Not as stable as the old one
<joshlieberman> +1 same for me
<AndreaPerego> It's the GH rendering, I guess.
phila: Yes, some rendering aspects on GH are a pain with the new stylesheet
PROPOSED: That the editors draft of the BP doc at w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/ be published by W3C and OGC as the next iteration
<jtandy> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1!
<ByronCinNZ> +1
<joshlieberman> +1
<eparsons> +1
<ChrisLittle> +1 but change pratice to practice
<kerry> +1
<billroberts> +1
<roba> the doc is looking much better - less detail and more useful scope!
<roba> +1
<ScottSimmons> +1
<joshlieberman> This best pratice extends [DWBP] best practice Descriptive Metadata.
<billroberts> I had to look that up - US uses 'c' for noun and verb
<billroberts> according to interwebs
RESOLUTION: That the editors draft of the BP doc at w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/ be published by W3C and OGC as the next iteration
<jtandy> thank you all!
<ScottSimmons> * too late - you are on my list now
<eparsons> Yay !!!
<AndreaPerego> lol
ScottSimmons: Checks that the OGC doc number needs to be appended with R1
eparsons: Now that we have reached this milestone, how are we going to actively solicit more comments?
<joshlieberman> Press release?
eparsons: Might be useful to let
the world know it's here.
... Prob not a press release but we need to get more input
ScottSimmons: We would do a press
release because it becomes one of our official docs. Apart from
that it becomes a question of mentioning it at events etc that
we attend
... maybe before our next TC
eparsons: Also ByronCinNZ and I have been talking about getting non geo people involved
<joshlieberman> pose a question to stackoverflow that's addressed by the bp doc...
phila: No press release but homepage news, tweets etc
RESOLUTION: Vote of thanks to the BP editors for huge amount of work done
<ChrisLittle> +1 !
<kerry> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<ByronCinNZ> +1
<eparsons> +1
<billroberts> +1
<jtandy> (still more work to do)
kerry: And Jeremy, you had a plan for regular new releases
<roba> +1
<jtandy> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Oct/0071.html
jtandy: If we look at ^^
... One of the things that got us into the situation of not
doing a release for nearly a year was that we wanted to get it
close to being finished
... So maybe a 4-6 week cycle of sprints might be a good idea.
We have identified priorities for the first sprint
... Startying with points raised at INSPIRE
... The adding a consistent example through the doc. Andrea
suggested a call for ideas/example
... I think we need to continue to develop section 10 that
talks you through how you would make decision wrt DWBP anda
SDW-BP
... And we have 2 BPs that we talked about in depth at TPAC, 7
and 4 (global IDs and indexing)
... Need to make sure that what we decided in Lisbon makes it
into the doc.
<ChrisLittle> S/wert/wrt/
jtandy: Getting us into the time boxing attitude should help.
<eparsons> +1 to the idea
<AndreaPerego> +1 from me to the proposal.
kerry: I think it's good plan. Prob want to check phil and scott resources for that
<joshlieberman> so it was never actually on Pending Docs?
<AndreaPerego> Is this one, phila? https://github.com/w3c/echidna
<ScottSimmons> the Best Practices document is NOT r1, rather it is 15-107
<ScottSimmons> Josh - yes, the document was reserved, but never posted!
kerry: We've been working through
implications of implementation requirements, now have a plan
for how to handle that.
... Other big thing to report is that we've invited Armin
Haller to chair the SSN sub group meeting
billroberts: We had a call last
week. There's been decent progress on the docs
... Had some encouraging news of potential implementation of
CoverageJSON from Met office and Danh. May even be able to move
back to Rec Track
kerry: Minor correction, Danh was talking about RDF Cube implementation, not CovJSON
-> https://www.w3.org/2015/ceo-ld/report CEO-LD Project
roba: JUst to correct your correction. I believe Danh was talking about RDF data Cube descriptions of CoverageJSON so actually using both
kerry: Chris - any update?
ChrisLittle: There's one of these official calls patent claims
phila: Explains W3C patent call process (analogous with OGC Patent Call)
kerry: Chairs have some concerns about progress. Wg won't be happy if we can't complete that work
ChrisLittle: I've spoken to our
Skunk Works devs and try to do both SSN and Time in a
demo
... Early next year
kerry: Excellent.
ChrisLittle: But we'll need to learn how to do ontologies
kerry: It's easier for Time than
for SSN.
... For SSN we hope to be able to use old implementations but
for Time, need to look for those old implementations
joshlieberman: This isn't a reference to Time but to SSN. We have a connection to O&M. There's a fairly easy path to implementation evidence by looking for OM evidence
kerry: I'm interested but I;m not sure it will work given what an implementation needs to show.
<AndreaPerego> SDW @ INSPIRE 2016: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SDW_Workshop_@_INSPIRE_2016
eparsons: Andrea gave us the opportunity to speak at the last day at the Barcelona conference. Got about 40 people in the end
<eparsons> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/14HR4tM14FsntP_1ylTn4kw1Y00v3emzRYrpWFLHMo7U/edit?usp=sharing
eparsons: I presented some slides
<eparsons> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Sep/0274.html
eparsons: Clemens did a good job
of taking minutes while I rambled on
... First 10 mins, I put the work in context once again, what
LD is, how the Wg was formed.
... Then focused on what the INSPIRE community wants (SDI for
Europe etc.)
... So one topic was how we can reach out beyond the SDI
community.
... Topic of the terminology (spatial thing, feature
etc.)
... Don't think we need to redefine our terms, The term feature
is OK as a modelling term.
... Majority of the time spent on the 4 topics that Andrea
asked us to focus on. BP 7 - HTTP URIs as identifiers
... How would we manage the minting of URIs, managing life
cycle.
... Surprised at how little push back there was.
... Likewise, BP 4 (indexing) - audience appreciated that.
Dutch cadastre supportive
... The notes give you good overview of what happened.
... How the search engines operate, what SEO means for
geo
... BP 8 providing geometries in a usable way - boiled down to
encoding and CRSs.
... Acceptance that multiple CRSs prob good, prob boils down to
ETRS89, Web Mercator and national CRSs
<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask about provision of multiple geometries
eparsons: A single encoding might be desirable but I said it's not likely to happen this time.
jtandy: If you're talking about multiple CRSs, one thing we've talked about it giving people multiple representations of the same feature
eparsons: Same feature in multiple representations
jtandy: Case one might need point, another case might need polygon but they're the same feature.
<joshlieberman> The polar regions are a good example of absolutely needing different CRS's - Web Mercator just won't do at all.
eparsons: It's about what
encoding and then what CRS do we present
... Remodelling didn't come into it.
... Spatial Semantics of things - again some interest in one
ontology to rule them all.
... Most people accecpt this as being a good thing to do.
... Some focus on topological relationships
... But we also recognise non-topological but still spatial
relationships.
... Then went through the BPs and asked for priorities
<jtandy> (non-comptutable relationships that don't count as topology?)
<AndreaPerego> Many thanks, Ed (& Clemens)!
eparsons: General agreement but that's prob through lack of prior familiarity
jtandy: Thanks Ed
<joshlieberman> nearness is a computable but non-topological relation
<roba> no worries
kerry: Any other commentws on that?
jtandy: In terms of the docs we've voted to release - timing?
phila: Tuesday
eparsons: Kudos once again to the editors [Applause]
<AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!
<roba> bye
<billroberts> thanks, bye
<kerry> bye!
<joshlieberman> bye
<eparsons> Goodnight all