Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

05 April 2017

Meeting Minutes

Patent Call

Patent call

<eparsons> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2015/‌spatial/‌wiki/‌Patent_Call

Approve last week's minutes

<eparsons> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌03/‌20-sdw-minutes

<kerry> +1

<ahaller2> +1

<eparsons> +1

<ChrisLittle> +0 WAS NOT THERE

<phila> This was day 1 of the F2F

+) wasn't there

<KJanowic> 0

<phila> (wasn't present

<RaulGarciaCastro> +0 (not there)

<MattPerry> +0

<eparsons> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌03/‌21-sdw-minutes

<kerry> +1

<RaulGarciaCastro> +1

<KJanowic> 0

<ahaller2> +1

+0 - wasn't there

<ChrisLittle> +0 not there too

<eparsons> +1

<phila> +1

Resolved: Approve last week's minutes

SSN Deliverables & timeframes

phila: discusses the recent SSN meeting and the current emails (regarding the naming)

phila: in Delft we agreed to have 2 separate names and there will be a common base name

phila: there were lots of discussions in Delft about the naming

phila: there recent complaints aren't been agreed with.

phila: we seem not to have a consensus in this part of the work

<KJanowic> Phil, can I briefly jump in here.

phila: that this work (SSN) might become a note in the end.

<phila> Discover API

phila: this is an example of document that the group didn't come an agreement

KJanowic: discusses the current emails and issues;

KJanowic: asks for more time to come to an agreement; feels there have been lots of improvements

KJanowic: we can work this out; we can have a good draft by the 17th. Let's wait until the 17th.

KJanowic: it's not as bad as it seems

ahaller2: is commenting on the naming issue

<KJanowic> Yes, naming will not sink this. Those that disagreed still offered alternative options.

ahaller2: this is a very small issue in the end. Armin acknowledges that there was an agreement initially during the f2f meeting

ahaller2: feels that the groups is working swiftly to address the issues; if we have the chance to work on the SSN document for 2 more weeks, the issues will be resolved

<KJanowic> Can I add one more comment?

eparsons: acknowledge the huge amount of work that has been dedicated to the SSN work

eparsons: naming is a serious issue and consensus seems to be a problem.

eparsons: resolving these issues seem to a big task; maybe a note could be good choice

KJanowic: suggests referring to the [previous] meeting minutes

KJanowic: is discussing the voting process and the agreement process

KJanowic: the naming issues requires some compromise and suggests to continue the work until the 17th; this can be done successfully

KJanowic: let's give it one more chance

kerry: agrees that most of the meetings are productive

<KJanowic> Kerry, you are part of the group. Please join us instead of fighting the rest of us constantly!

kerry: when she read the minutes, an issue that she had raised was discussed when she wasn't around and voted and agreed while she had a different view on the matter

<KJanowic> How can you say that we have almost nothing?

kerry: feels resolving the issues in the remaining time is not realistic

KJanowic: feels differently; KJanowic feels the group is almost ready

<phila> Payam: As an external observer, I read the emails my feeling is that there is no consensus.

<phila> ... What Phil says, W3C/OGC are about consensus

<KJanowic> Armin, can you speak up to this?

<SimonCox> Sorry I'm very very late

ahaller2: commenting on Payam's comments: people have different opinions

<SimonCox> I hear that. I can't contribute yet as I don't know state of conversation.

ahaller2: refers to the meeting that kerry couldn't join and there was a vote (it wasn't on purpose)

kerry: didn't mean that it was deliberate

<KJanowic> Simon?

ahaller2: feels given more time the group can progress

<SimonCox> Sorry - I was trying to speak but clearly my mike is not working :-(

phila: is aware that this work seems to be close to be [virtually] stopped

<kerry> q

<kerry> q

phila: acknowledges that the SSN work is superb

phila: this could become 2 separate "note"s

phila: we are here to help run the process

phila: is talking about the status of the time ontology;

phila: regarding the ssn we should consider what is best for the group

SimonCox: agrees with phila's assessment of the current status of the ssn

SimonCox: feels there is a significant collaborative work in ssn (50% of the group) and some part of the group seem to be passive and another part has not considered the progress until it became too late

eparsons: would like to hear from the ssn group, what would be a realistic proposal?

KJanowic: is there any chance to get 2 more weeks? KJanowic wants to give it another try

phila: it is not only 2 more weeks; it needs implementation and ...

<KJanowic> Yes, why don't we wait until the 17th.

<SimonCox> In response to Ed: my judgement is that consensus is now less of a problem than the sheer workload in front of us - I think phila jus said this too

<KJanowic> I fully understand and am fine with whatever decision you take but have to leave now.

<KJanowic> Thanks Ed and Phil, appreciate your feedback

eparsons: if the ssn group feel they want to push towards the 17th deadline, they won't be stopped. it's your call...

phila: is discussing the email issues

ahaller2: will try to speak offline ad make a decision

<roba> time zone fail - sorry

Time ontology

SimonCox: the time ontology is mainly done by one person.

SimonCox: this is a re-documentation and providing a formal specification

SimonCox: some additional proposals have also been made

SimonCox: has worked on the implementation- SimonCox thinks they can show 2 separate implementation and lots of evidence of using the time ontology in other ontologies

SimonCox: if the evidence of use is that the time ontology being used in other ontologies then there are sufficient evidence

SimonCox: this document requires more examples

SimonCox: believes by the next meeting, the document will be presentable

ChrisLittle_: has been reading and reviewing the documents - agrees with SimonCox

ChrisLittle_: has a version with too many examples

ChrisLittle_: is discussing a public comment that they have had

phila: the next stage will be a recommendation

phila: this will require evidence of a wider view

phila: we should show evidence that we have asked other people to review this

phila: are there any new terms that will be difficult to find evidence of use?

SimonCox: there will be around 5 new terms (out of 30?)

phila: this could pose a risk

phila: you need to collect and show the evidence that you have asked other people to review and look at this document

phila: this should be done very soon

<Zakim> tidoust, you wanted to wonder whether we could start horizontal reviews right away

tidoust: changes that time ontology team require.../document seems ready enough for wide review. What bugs me is the presence of issue notes that link to closed issues, but apart from that, there's just one pending PR. Let's reach out! If we don't need to ask accessibility, privacy, security.../changes that time ontology team require...

tidoust: who do we need to ask?

phila: OGC, relevant groups... and record your evidence and efforts

SimonCox: is asking the rest of the group to help with this

ChrisLittle_: OGC has a group and he will circulate the document to them.

eparsons: we need to do this now..

thanks tidoust

eparsons: any other comments?

<ahaller2> thanks,bye

<RaulGarciaCastro> Bye!

<ChrisLittle_> bye

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Approve last week's minutes