See also: IRC log
<Linda> https://www.w3.org/2016/10/12-sdwbp-minutes
+1
<Linda> +0 was absent
<frans> It says you where there Linda
<ScottSimmons> +1
<Linda> +1
<frans> You even were scribe
RESOLUTION: Last telecon minutes approved
<frans> +0 (really was not there)
<Linda> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
<Linda> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Oct/0099.html
Linda: The question is whether we
want to be make sure that guidance on non-geo spatial data is
provided.
... this is actually also in the WG name.
... We have some non-geo UCs.
... But we don't have non-geo people active in the group.
Danger is that we just focus on *geo* spatial data.
<frans> In the charter it says: ¨'Geo' is not the only spatial data. In healthcare, for example, polygons may represent pathology tissue segmentation extractions that can be subjected to spatial analysis. Whilst prioritizing geospatial use cases, in so far as is practical, the WG will take account of the needs of other users of spatial technologies.¨
Linda: The idea is to try to
contact non-geo people to contribute.
... WDYT?
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about Erich Bremer et al
phila: The idea of using
"spatial" instead of geo came from a W3C member (Eric Bremer)
who has not been active for some time. I can contact him and
tell him to speak up.
... I can also contact other people - and other WG members can
do the same.
... If the contacted people respond, fine, otherwise we move
on.
Linda: Narrowing the scope to *geo* spatial is not desirable.
<joshlieberman> Is "spatial" an issue beyondn more possibilities for CRS?
frans: People doing spatial
modelling are not using geo standards - so this is one of the
target communities.
... good to have a scope as large as possible.
<joshlieberman> But should they be using geo standards, many of which are quite general to spatial dimensions?
frans: A question to phila: Are there any W3C groups we can outreach.
phila: There are some - as the Geolocation API - but they do not seem to be in our target.
frans: We can have a chat with the UC contributors, telling them we have a new version of the document, ask them whether it fullfills their need. But besides that, difficult to say how to accomplish that.
<joshlieberman> Question: are we considering real world but not geocentric space, or also considering conceptual spaces (e.g. compositional space)?
ScottSimmons: Sometimes data
consumers use geospatial data without recognising they are
spatials (e.g., building data).
... I'll be meeting in 2 weeks with buildingsmart international
and I can try and see if they can provide feedback.
<Linda> buildingsmart international
frans: It would be definitely interesting to have them involved.
<frans> http://www.buildingsmart-tech.org/future/linked-data/linked-data
joshlieberman: Anyone working on engineering diagrams can benefit from a general geo framework. Anyway, while working at the conceptual level, the critical bit is defining the relevant subset of a general framework, providing a different context to the defined concepts (e.g., CRSs),
Linda: Can you check the CRS part of the BP and see which changes need to be done?
joshlieberman: [agrees]
frans: Another case is base data,
where they also are trying to model geo stuff as
geometries.
... So, also here the input from the geo perspective would be
useful.
<joshlieberman> AndreaPerego - note is reasonably accurate. Thanks.
<phila> phila: Yes, SVG has geometry but it's the geometry of the display screen.
frans: About other W3C groups, some of them they use notions as geometry, and it may be worth to ensure alignment.
Linda: [mentioning the SVG group]
<joshlieberman> As I recall, Takagi has been advocating for better CRS support in SVG but hasn't gotten complete traction.
See thread: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Oct/0103.html
Linda: We have a new BP version,
and the idea is to release new versions on a regular
basis.
... One of the inputs to be taken into account comes from the
INSPIRE workshop.
... Clemens highligheted in the mail below two comments:
... "Most BP titels are not really 'spatial'. Which other
communities have been successful with these practices?" - It
would provide substance to the claim that we recommended
practices are indeed "best" practices, if we could point not
just to specific examples per BP, but point to cases where
other communities (than the SDI community) are already
following the DWBP principles and have measurably benefited
from this."
... [going through the relevant BPs]
... Their titles don't look specific to spatial data.
... So, are there BPs in other communities we can re-use /
refer to?
BartvanLeeuwen: I wanted to comment about the measurable impact of BPs.
<billroberts> sorry I'm late -figured better late than never
BartvanLeeuwen: Actually, this
may be difficult to measure - is like measuring the impact of
open data.
... Maybe phila can comment on what has been done in the DWBP
WG.
frans: I'm not sure I understand
the comment reported by Clemens. It's just about the title? We
don't need to repeat "spatial" in the title.
... About checking BPs outside the geo domain, this should be a
job for the DWBP.
Linda: Good point. But I think
the main question is whether there's evidence that other
communities have been successful with such BPs.
... Also the DWBP should have such pointers.
frans: So, probably is just a job
for the DWBP WG.
... We can just say that we extend what they did.
<joshlieberman> Is this just a question of inserting "spatial" into the titles in the BP where it is perhaps currently implicit?
Linda: Yes, joshlieberman, it may be just adding "spatial" in the title.
<frans> Would that not be redundant?
joshlieberman: If this is the case, it's just a minor change to be done.
BartvanLeeuwen: I agree with both joshlieberman and frans. Actually, if you look at some BPs, maybe they talk about something general (e.g., use HTTP URIs), but how you do that is in many case domain-dependent.
Linda: Could you please elaborate?
BartvanLeeuwen: [I'm afraid I missed it, Bart]
<frans> It seems we are not clear on what the perceived problem really was
BartvanLeeuwen: frans's comment
is spot on: "what are we trying to solve?"
... Putting a "spatial" tag does not ensure spatial people
understand that BP is for them.
<joshlieberman> In the case of BP 12, it is actually substantive to say that we recommend providing spatial search of spatial data. Maybe not in other cases.
<Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to mention that the DWBP is now running a survey to collect evidence for their BPs
<frans> AndreaPerego: DWBP are running a survey.
<frans> ... could we do the same?
<frans> ... adding the word ´spatial´ to all titles would be superfluous
<frans> ... perhaps the commenters did not read the document carefully enough
<frans> Yes, web documents are not read in the same way as one reads a book
Linda: Yes, but probably it would be good that "how a BP applies to me" be clear even though you start reading in the middle.
<phila> Evidences form
phi
<phila> evidence spreadhseet
<joshlieberman> Interesting question - will there be links to each individual BP - in which case having "spatial" in the title might improve searchability.
phila: Yes, the DWBP created an
online form, and also a spreadsheet.
... it's quite complex.
... It is worth collecting evidence for the SDW BP, but we have
to take into account the time we have (also considering the
extension).
Linda: Second comment from
Clemens:
... Two additional BPs: a) How to reuse existing
infrastructure, easy steps for data providers. b) Queries are
important, but unclear how to query distributed data holdings
on the web since there are different APIs (SPARQL, etc)." - It
is worth checking, if these aspects are covered sufficiently
already or if we should add something, for example, additional
BPs as proposed
... Quite interesting to me - we did a lot of work on this in
the Geonovum testbed.
... Also the second one may be relevant - although not
completely clear to me.
BartvanLeeuwen: I've shown something like that, and I also wonder we need to have such BP.
Linda: Tend to agree.
joshlieberman: we can improve wording of existing BP's to emphasize improving SDI interfaces to the Web rather than (immediately) revamping internal infrastructure, as well as to emphasize "standard spatial API's" rathe than just "API's"
frans: Agree that "federated queries" use case can be added.
Linda: Do you have something to contribute on this, BartvanLeeuwen ?
BartvanLeeuwen: Need to think about.
<joshlieberman> My response: we can improve wording of existing BP's to emphasize improving SDI interfaces to the Web rather than (immediately) revamping internal infrastructure, as well as to emphasize "standard spatial API's" rathe than just "API's"
<BartvanLeeuwen> thx linda
<frans> Thanks, have a good day
<joshlieberman> Thanks and bye.