15:53:46 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sdwbp
15:53:46 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/11/09-sdwbp-irc
15:53:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:53:48 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sdwbp
15:53:50 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SDW
15:53:50 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
15:53:51 <trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
15:53:51 <trackbot> Date: 09 November 2016
15:54:18 <eparsons> Present+ eparsons
15:54:27 <eparsons> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:59:22 <Linda> Linda has joined #sdwbp
16:01:42 <ByronCinNZ> ByronCinNZ has joined #sdwbp
16:02:04 <ClemensPortele> ClemensPortele has joined #sdwbp
16:03:32 <ClemensPortele> present+ ClemensPortele
16:03:34 <ByronCinNZ> present+ ByronCinNZ
16:03:39 <ClausStadler> ClausStadler has joined #sdwbp
16:03:42 <jtandy> jtandy has joined #sdwbp
16:04:13 <jtandy> present+ jtandy
16:05:17 <Linda> Present+ Linda
16:05:42 <eparsons> usual one plus BP
16:05:59 <jtandy> sdwbp
16:06:56 <ClausStadler> still launching windows vm - sec :)
16:07:12 <jtandy> regrets+ mattperry
16:07:20 <ClemensPortele> scribe: ClemensPortele
16:07:31 <ClemensPortele> scribenick: ClemensPortele
16:08:17 <jtandy> topic: approve last minutes
16:08:19 <jtandy> https://www.w3.org/2016/10/26-sdwbp-minutes
16:08:26 <jtandy> +0
16:08:34 <Linda> +1
16:08:36 <ByronCinNZ> +0 not there
16:08:41 <eparsons> +0 also
16:08:44 <ClemensPortele> +0 (not there)
16:08:52 <ClausStadler> +0
16:09:26 <jtandy> topic: patent call
16:09:27 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #sdwbp
16:09:29 <eparsons> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
16:09:38 <AndreaPerego> present+ AndreaPerego
16:09:52 <jtandy> topic: Review proposed changes: edits to BP 11 and BP title changes in response to feedback from INSPIRE workshop
16:10:53 <ClemensPortele> Linda: reviewed BP titles to check if the titles could be improved by clarifying that they are about spatial data
16:11:46 <ClemensPortele> ... changed some of the titles (does not have the full list ready, but it was one pull request)
16:12:01 <ClemensPortele> ... should we review offline or discuss now?
16:12:10 <ClemensPortele> jtandy: Fine with offline review
16:12:16 <AndreaPerego> PR: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/412
16:12:43 <AndreaPerego> PR: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/413
16:12:53 <ClemensPortele> Linda: Also did some changes to BP11 based on feedback from the workshop
16:13:51 <AndreaPerego> BP11: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#convenience-apis
16:13:56 <eparsons> q+
16:14:23 <jtandy> ack eparsons
16:14:26 <ClemensPortele> Linda: BP11 seemed the right place to clarify how to build on top of / migrate from an existing SDI
16:15:12 <ClemensPortele> eparsons: Should not be a separate BP, but we need to provide text that point to the relevant pieces
16:16:01 <ClemensPortele> jtandy: Another BP was the URI per resource BP
16:16:26 <jtandy> q=
16:16:27 <ClemensPortele> Linda: So we need a section?
16:16:28 <jtandy> q+
16:16:33 <jtandy> q?
16:16:45 <jtandy> q-
16:16:51 <ClemensPortele> eparsons: Yes, a section for that particular target audience seem most appropriate
16:17:24 <ClemensPortele> Linda: Perhaps use section 9
16:17:37 <jtandy> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#why-are-traditional-sdi-not-enough
16:17:49 <ClemensPortele> jtandy: Agrees, maybe also something in section 10
16:18:02 <ClemensPortele> q+
16:18:30 <jtandy> ack ClemensPortele
16:19:31 <jtandy> action: Linda to add to section 9 about which Best Practices are relevant for those coming from the SDI community
16:19:31 <trackbot> Created ACTION-217 - Add to section 9 about which best practices are relevant for those coming from the sdi community [on Linda van den Brink - due 2016-11-16].
16:19:56 <ClemensPortele> ClemensPortele: Maybe also add backlinks from the BP
16:20:26 <ClausStadler_> ClausStadler_ has joined #sdwbp
16:21:05 <jtandy> "1. Reuse your existing spatial data infrastructure"
16:21:09 <jtandy> of BP 11
16:22:23 <ClemensPortele> jtandy: Should we keep the Z39.50 reference?
16:23:05 <ClausStadler_> present+ ClausStadler
16:23:14 <ClemensPortele> Linda: I added text about the Geonovum testbed
16:23:32 <ClemensPortele> jtandy: We could add Bart's example, too
16:24:03 <ClemensPortele> Linda: Figure 1 is already from it
16:24:25 <ClemensPortele> Linda: Added a placeholder for another example
16:25:42 <jtandy> action: linda to talk to Bart about getting more detailed content about his Linked Data / WFS approach for inclusion in BP 11
16:25:42 <trackbot> Created ACTION-218 - Talk to bart about getting more detailed content about his linked data / wfs approach for inclusion in bp 11 [on Linda van den Brink - due 2016-11-16].
16:25:55 <jtandy> q?
16:26:09 <jtandy> topic: Concluding discussions about BP7 and "indirect identifiers" (what did we agree at TPAC?)
16:26:35 <Linda> Linda has joined #Sdwbp
16:26:55 <ClemensPortele> jtandy: two long discussions at TPAC about BPs (BP7 and spatial indexing)
16:27:14 <jtandy> q?
16:27:38 <ClemensPortele> jtandy: looking at BP7 how to include the result of the discussion
16:28:38 <ClemensPortele> jtandy: there was a discussion about http vs https (ssn namespace). Did we agree to separate the namespace from the protocol?
16:29:08 <ClemensPortele> eparsons: I think so. We can use http and assume that http/https will resolve to the same resource
16:29:32 <AndreaPerego> +1
16:30:03 <ClemensPortele> eparsons: for other protocals beside http/https this could be different
16:30:28 <ClemensPortele> jtandy: so probably this is not a big issue
16:31:44 <jtandy> https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#identifiersWithinDatasets
16:31:47 <ClemensPortele> jtandy: so what is BP7 saying that is not already covered by BP10?
16:32:43 <ClemensPortele> jtandy: ... (BP10 from DWBP)
16:33:52 <ClemensPortele> eparsons: they are very similar. The important thing is highlighting to publish resources at a more granular level.
16:34:29 <ByronCinNZ> q+
16:34:47 <AndreaPerego> q+
16:35:21 <ClemensPortele> jtandy: Some of this is discussed in section 9 and in BP. Are we getting the message across?
16:35:56 <jtandy> q?
16:36:16 <jtandy> ack ByronCinNZ
16:36:19 <ClemensPortele> eparsons: I think so. And I think there is value in having a separate BP7
16:36:37 <ChrisLittle> ChrisLittle has joined #Sdwbp
16:36:50 <ChrisLittle> Present+
16:37:07 <ClemensPortele> ByronCinNZ: the SDWBP should provide guidance how to apply the DWBP for spatial data
16:37:14 <ChrisLittle> * apologies for late arrival - terrier mode ticking off tasks
16:37:33 <BartvanLeeuwen> BartvanLeeuwen has joined #sdwbp
16:37:39 <jtandy> q?
16:37:44 <jtandy> ack AndreaPerego
16:39:20 <BartvanLeeuwen> present+ BartvanLeeuwen
16:39:25 <ClemensPortele> AndreaPerego: agrees with ByronCinNZ. This is an important BP and not current practice, so it is better to keep it
16:40:11 <jtandy> q?
16:40:36 <ChrisLittle> Help
16:41:07 <ClemensPortele> AndreaPerego: current practice is to use local identifiers, but hard to reference from the outside
16:41:32 <Linda> Linda has joined #Sdwbp
16:41:36 <jtandy> q?
16:43:31 <ClemensPortele> jtandy: so we want to keep BP7. Another aspect to discuss is the reuse of identifiers ("to keep the global graph intact").
16:44:44 <ClemensPortele> jtandy: But to be able to add additional information and make it retrievable it requires a new identifier with a sameAs-like link to the "known identifier"
16:45:15 <ClemensPortele> jtandy: "samePlaceAs"?
16:45:41 <ClemensPortele> eparsons: samePlaceAs sounds restrictive
16:46:05 <ByronCinNZ> q+
16:46:25 <ClemensPortele> jtandy: agrees, we want to avoid the strong nature of sameAs
16:46:39 <jtandy> ack ByronCinNZ
16:47:19 <ClemensPortele> ByronCinNZ: likes the idea, very geographic statement. In which ontology would this reside?
16:47:46 <ClemensPortele> ClemensPortele: I think we said it would be an IANA link relation identifier
16:48:40 <ChrisLittle> Q+
16:48:41 <ClemensPortele> jtandy: As it does not exist yet, we cannot claim it is a "best practice"
16:49:46 <ByronCinNZ> q+
16:50:05 <jtandy> ack ChrisLittle
16:50:06 <ClemensPortele> eparsons: I think this problem will be hard to avoid, but it could be described as a way to address the issue
16:51:03 <ClemensPortele> ChrisLittle: worried about "samePlaceAs". How does it fit with the algebra of polygons?
16:51:17 <ClemensPortele> jtandy: we don't want to be too specific
16:51:54 <ClemensPortele> jtandy: ... at TPAC we had a discussion about the well-defined topological relationships
16:52:32 <ClemensPortele> eparsons: to get something done quickly we should try to keep it simple
16:52:41 <jtandy> q?
16:53:12 <ClemensPortele> eparsons: ... relationships could be tackled later
16:53:21 <ClausStadler_> q+
16:53:29 <jtandy> ack ByronCinNZ
16:53:39 <ClemensPortele> jtandy: so we agree that samePlaceAs is not intended as a mathematical statement
16:53:53 <ClausStadler_> https://files.ifi.uzh.ch/ddis/iswc_archive/iswc/pps/web/iswc2010.semanticweb.org/pdf/261.pdf
16:54:07 <ClausStadler_> "so:matches Two URIs refer to possibly distinct things that share all the prop- erties needed to substitute for each other in some graphs. Th is property is symmetric but not necessarily reflexive. so:matches is a super-property of so:identical ."
16:54:22 <ClemensPortele> ByronCinNZ: agrees, and this is probably the most important of the topological relationships
16:54:31 <jtandy> q?
16:54:40 <jtandy> ack ClausStadler_
16:55:18 <ClemensPortele> ClausStadler_: Explains the paper and "so:matches" reference (see above)
16:56:17 <ClemensPortele> jtandy: yes, there is overlap. we want to focus on the spatial match.
16:56:33 <jtandy> q?
16:56:47 <ClemensPortele> ClausStadler_: could be a sub-property
16:57:03 <ClemensPortele> jtandy: worried on nesting, maybe it makes it overcomplicated
16:57:13 <ClemensPortele> I agree with the concern
16:57:18 <eparsons> +1
16:57:31 <ClemensPortele> eparsons: worried about complication, too
16:57:39 <AndreaPerego> +1
16:57:43 <ClemensPortele> ByronCinNZ: should be a top-level relationship
16:57:57 <jtandy> topic: Planning for next F2F meeting
16:58:18 <ClemensPortele> eparsons: Meeting on Dec 15-16 in London
16:58:31 <ClemensPortele> eparsons: need to decide on rough agenda, but also coverage
16:58:41 <jtandy> q+
16:58:54 <jtandy> q-
16:59:02 <ClemensPortele> eparsons: please add to the wiki if you plan to attend
16:59:19 <ClemensPortele> jtandy: any limit of numbers?
16:59:38 <ClemensPortele> eparsons: 16, probably not an issue
17:00:35 <jtandy> topic: Your BP editors need you! (can you lead the development of a section of the BP document?)
17:00:44 <ClemensPortele> jtandy: if you want to add anything to the agenda, please add it to the agenda (that eparsons is creating right now)
17:01:34 <ClemensPortele> jtandy: the editors have only limited availability and would like to find contributors that want to own sections
17:02:00 <AndreaPerego> I'll have a closer look, and let you know if I can volunteer.
17:02:08 <jtandy> q?
17:02:12 <ClemensPortele> jtandy: please think about it and get back to jtandy/Linda
17:02:20 <BartvanLeeuwen> bye
17:02:23 <AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!
17:02:27 <ClemensPortele> bye!
17:02:28 <jtandy> bye
17:02:35 <ChrisLittle> Bye
17:02:41 <ByronCinNZ> byer
17:02:43 <ByronCinNZ> bye
17:02:54 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:02:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/09-sdwbp-minutes.html AndreaPerego
17:27:55 <jtandy> jtandy has joined #sdwbp
19:02:48 <AndreaPerego> chair: jtandy
19:02:52 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes
19:02:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/09-sdwbp-minutes.html AndreaPerego
19:05:56 <AndreaPerego> regrets+ ScottSimmons
19:05:59 <AndreaPerego> RRSAgent, draft minutes
19:05:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/09-sdwbp-minutes.html AndreaPerego
19:06:25 <Zakim> Zakim has left #sdwbp
19:55:35 <billroberts> billroberts has joined #sdwbp