See also: IRC log
<billroberts> hello everyone
<billroberts> looks like webex not started yet - is that right Phil?
<roba> morning...
<scribe> scribe: kerry
<scribe> scribenick: kerry
<phila> ack k]
<phila> Meeting 2 weeks ago was informal. So...
<billroberts> https://www.w3.org/2016/11/09-sdwcov-minutes
+1
<roba> +1
<billroberts> +1 to approve minutes
resolve: approve minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/11/09-sdwcov-minutes notuc
bill" covjson plan to fill in a lot of the gaps
scribe: call with Jon Friday and exepct to meet monday morning stabe doc
as to plan
scribe: but have some questions...
<billroberts> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/coverage-json/
billroberts: couiple of sections
that I am asking about
... section 6 use cases and requirements
... thinking of exaplining how covjson maps to
requirements
... saw that other docs have not done it in a lot of
detail
... is this appropriate?
... necessary? useful?
phila: yes it is necessary
... you must show you have met requirements
... a section in each document to do this is useful
... it needs to be in all
billroberts: will do
roba: was planning to do same for
qb4st
... but question about style ...OGC provides more rationale of
technology where W3C is terse.. what do we do?
billroberts: also for covjson --- we need to say "why we are making another standard for coverages"
phila: would include some verbage
around motivation
... also relationship to previous work would be good
... like time --- why it is different to before
... beyond that entirely up to you
... no rule that yo cannot include explanation --- you should
do it if you think so especially if expected of OGC papers
roba: qb4st will retain why you need anything at all
phila: inapprop to write non-normative in docs as whole doc is non-normative
dmitrybrizhinev: non-normative comes by defualt -- cannot remove it -- is there another one?
phila: yes ... you should not use informative class so ... dont' use section class = informative
billroberts: covjson may have an appendix that contains [missed] so that the same doc has everything in it and not externally referenced
<billroberts> https://covjson.org/spec/
phila: billroberts question it is odd to have covjson standard body with an appensix that is the specification
s.appendix/apendix/
phila: will look inot ithis
billroberts: will talk to jon about how much the covjson spec might change -- it does not look tremendously final right now
roba: suggests you copy the spec in in full status
billroberts: but how close to final is it? in final version of note this could be the definitive version of spec
phila: leave this to editors
draft link.... their doc does not have ipr committments, so
that repo spec could be implemented with royalties
lurking
... so I am reluctant to give that doc credit, but we could
incluide a link somewhere...
roba: previous version link?
phila: no but something in the
status of the repo doc to point to our Note that points it as a
static version and that this version may be an update
... legal stuff matters a lot
... a link to that one is the best you can do -- there are
places you can link but it will not go through process and
IPR
billroberts: will work through that with Jon, seems like we should wrap up that spec and put it in this note
phila: yes, if the full content
goes in our note
... must give full endorsement in our note but IPR constrains
us
roba: could transcribe the bulk of it directly into our Note
<phila> s/ but we could include a link somewhere/ but we could certainly include links somewhere.../
billroberts: respec references: if we need a ref that is not elsewhere whre do I put it?
phila: in local biblio = config.js
<phila> This file, bill
phila: it shows how to do it there -- an ssn one is thre
billroberts: are we sharing a common biblio?
phila: just copy and paste between config.js
billroberts: doc number?
roba: offers to check on OGC doc number
Topcic: eo-qb?
<roba> 16-125 Publishing and Using Earth Observation Data with the RDF DataCube and the Discrete Global Grid System
<roba> but i dont see covjson yet..
dmitrybrizhinev: pretty good shape, includes refs to use cases and requirements, we have description to rdf on example, als some new detail with implementation, has updated qb-4st
billroberts: what do we have to do in a formal sense?
phila: day 1 of f2f will be vote -- it ha become the norm that the group is given a week to review it
<roba> shall I generate one then?
eo-qb lokks ready for review to me
billroberts: if there isn't one and you can make one --- can you pls? for covjson
roba: title is currently
"coveragejson" but it can be changed
... usually more descriptive than that -- what do you want?
<roba> The CoverageJSON Format Specification
roba: [suggested a name] and bill agreed
phila: asks about geojson's
name
... likes "coveragejson" name
... dmitry
... could this end up a rec -- could there be another
implementation for rec?
dmitrybrizhinev: but is more of guidance -- a wroked example -- than it is for a standard
<roba> You have successfully reserved 16-145 for The CoverageJSON Format Specification.
billroberts: on eo-qb will send round an email to draw attention
roba: minor changes around qb4st
Kerry: will do
roba: other comment is if using
rdfdatacube --- statment about using for data and metadata
should be higher up
... is more significant than where it is
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask about the namespace http://resources.opengeospatial.org/def/qbcomponents/qb4st/
phila: ... 2 things -- the namespace is very long... can it be shorter ... when I refernce it I get an error
<phila> I can offer you http://www.w3.org/ns/qb4st
roba: namespace is not fixed yet.... currently mutable... what should they be .. can be changed to a target
phila: can give you one
roba: will adopt what you give me
phila: want to see the final name space in the FPWD
roba: happy eith that
<Zakim> Kerry, you wanted to ask a realted question about ssn
billroberts: so when will qb4st be ready
roba: wanting some more review
billroberts: will leave to you to mail the list
roba: there has been close review
of the concept by dmitry, chris, kerry etc but would like a
closer look at the ontlogy itself
... but can throw it out as public draft and see
phila: we should contact Cyganiak and Reynolds to review
roba: did talk with reynolds
again about the concept but not the detailed design
... would welcome a closer inspection
billroberts: any other thing to
agree for next meeting?
... rob would you lie to see someone lese summarise and present
for you?
roba: I might make it (am on holiday)
billroberts: beterrn Kerry and I we can muddle through witout you
s/beterrrn/between/
billroberts: propose skip 21
Dec
... propose next meeting is 18th Jan
<roba> +1
billroberts: aob?
roba: will also correct namesspace update for eo-qb if you accept the pr
billroberts: happy Christmas! and good hoidays1
rrsagent draft minutes
<billroberts> bye all