See also: IRC log
<eparsons> usual one plus BP
<jtandy> sdwbp
<ClausStadler> still launching windows vm - sec :)
<scribe> scribe: ClemensPortele
<scribe> scribenick: ClemensPortele
<jtandy> https://www.w3.org/2016/10/26-sdwbp-minutes
<jtandy> +0
<Linda> +1
<ByronCinNZ> +0 not there
<eparsons> +0 also
+0 (not there)
<ClausStadler> +0
<eparsons> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
Linda: reviewed BP titles to
check if the titles could be improved by clarifying that they
are about spatial data
... changed some of the titles (does not have the full list
ready, but it was one pull request)
... should we review offline or discuss now?
jtandy: Fine with offline review
<AndreaPerego> PR: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/412
<AndreaPerego> PR: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/413
Linda: Also did some changes to BP11 based on feedback from the workshop
<AndreaPerego> BP11: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#convenience-apis
Linda: BP11 seemed the right place to clarify how to build on top of / migrate from an existing SDI
eparsons: Should not be a separate BP, but we need to provide text that point to the relevant pieces
jtandy: Another BP was the URI per resource BP
Linda: So we need a section?
eparsons: Yes, a section for that particular target audience seem most appropriate
Linda: Perhaps use section 9
<jtandy> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#why-are-traditional-sdi-not-enough
jtandy: Agrees, maybe also something in section 10
<jtandy> ACTION: Linda to add to section 9 about which Best Practices are relevant for those coming from the SDI community [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/11/09-sdwbp-minutes.html#action01]
<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].
ClemensPortele: Maybe also add backlinks from the BP
<jtandy> "1. Reuse your existing spatial data infrastructure"
<jtandy> of BP 11
jtandy: Should we keep the Z39.50 reference?
Linda: I added text about the Geonovum testbed
jtandy: We could add Bart's example, too
Linda: Figure 1 is already from
it
... Added a placeholder for another example
<jtandy> ACTION: linda to talk to Bart about getting more detailed content about his Linked Data / WFS approach for inclusion in BP 11 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/11/09-sdwbp-minutes.html#action02]
<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].
jtandy: two long discussions at
TPAC about BPs (BP7 and spatial indexing)
... looking at BP7 how to include the result of the
discussion
... there was a discussion about http vs https (ssn namespace).
Did we agree to separate the namespace from the protocol?
eparsons: I think so. We can use http and assume that http/https will resolve to the same resource
<AndreaPerego> +1
eparsons: for other protocals beside http/https this could be different
jtandy: so probably this is not a big issue
<jtandy> https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#identifiersWithinDatasets
jtandy: so what is BP7 saying
that is not already covered by BP10?
... ... (BP10 from DWBP)
eparsons: they are very similar. The important thing is highlighting to publish resources at a more granular level.
jtandy: Some of this is discussed in section 9 and in BP. Are we getting the message across?
eparsons: I think so. And I think there is value in having a separate BP7
ByronCinNZ: the SDWBP should provide guidance how to apply the DWBP for spatial data
<ChrisLittle> * apologies for late arrival - terrier mode ticking off tasks
AndreaPerego: agrees with ByronCinNZ. This is an important BP and not current practice, so it is better to keep it
<ChrisLittle> Help
AndreaPerego: current practice is to use local identifiers, but hard to reference from the outside
jtandy: so we want to keep BP7.
Another aspect to discuss is the reuse of identifiers ("to keep
the global graph intact").
... 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"
... "samePlaceAs"?
eparsons: samePlaceAs sounds restrictive
jtandy: agrees, we want to avoid the strong nature of sameAs
ByronCinNZ: likes the idea, very geographic statement. In which ontology would this reside?
ClemensPortele: I think we said it would be an IANA link relation identifier
jtandy: As it does not exist yet, we cannot claim it is a "best practice"
eparsons: I think this problem will be hard to avoid, but it could be described as a way to address the issue
ChrisLittle: worried about "samePlaceAs". How does it fit with the algebra of polygons?
jtandy: we don't want to be too
specific
... ... at TPAC we had a discussion about the well-defined
topological relationships
eparsons: to get something done
quickly we should try to keep it simple
... ... relationships could be tackled later
jtandy: so we agree that samePlaceAs is not intended as a mathematical statement
<ClausStadler_> https://files.ifi.uzh.ch/ddis/iswc_archive/iswc/pps/web/iswc2010.semanticweb.org/pdf/261.pdf
<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 ."
ByronCinNZ: agrees, and this is probably the most important of the topological relationships
ClausStadler_: Explains the paper and "so:matches" reference (see above)
jtandy: yes, there is overlap. we want to focus on the spatial match.
ClausStadler_: could be a sub-property
jtandy: worried on nesting, maybe it makes it overcomplicated
I agree with the concern
<eparsons> +1
eparsons: worried about complication, too
<AndreaPerego> +1
ByronCinNZ: should be a top-level relationship
eparsons: Meeting on Dec 15-16 in
London
... need to decide on rough agenda, but also coverage
... please add to the wiki if you plan to attend
jtandy: any limit of numbers?
eparsons: 16, probably not an issue
jtandy: if you want to add
anything to the agenda, please add it to the agenda (that
eparsons is creating right now)
... the editors have only limited availability and would like
to find contributors that want to own sections
<AndreaPerego> I'll have a closer look, and let you know if I can volunteer.
jtandy: please think about it and get back to jtandy/Linda
<BartvanLeeuwen> bye
<AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!
bye!
<jtandy> bye
<ChrisLittle> Bye
<ByronCinNZ> byer
<ByronCinNZ> bye
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.148 of Date: 2016/10/11 12:55:14 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: ClemensPortele Inferring ScribeNick: ClemensPortele Found ScribeNick: ClemensPortele Present: eparsons ClemensPortele ByronCinNZ jtandy Linda AndreaPerego ClausStadler ChrisLittle BartvanLeeuwen Regrets: mattperry ScottSimmons Found Date: 09 Nov 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/11/09-sdwbp-minutes.html People with action items: linda[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]