Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
05 April 2017
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
jtandy - work as many issues as possible directed by Linda
<jtandy> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_sorted_issue_list
Linda 3 groups - 1 issues we need to talk about
Linda 2 - issues to review
Linda 3 - Stuff still needs to be done - more work required
Linda - Need a resolution to close issues - all agreed
jtandy - close both in GitHub and minutes
Linda Issue 656 - Geojson new issue
<tidoust> #656
Linda - interesting address problem with data with large features
Linda - Large arrays of coordinates in a single feature
jtandy - Not common practice yet - we have not heard of it..
Linda - Mention as emerging practice...
billroberts - leave it out, not identified as a problem yet in BP
jtandy - Andrea looking at simplification approaches to simply geometry
jtandy Action to look at both the problem and this as an emerging approach to resolve it
Action: eparsons to look at both the geojson size problem and this as an emerging approach to resolve
<trackbot> Error creating an ACTION: could not connect to Tracker. Please mail <sysreq@w3.org> with details about what happened.
Linda Next Issue 392
<tidoust> Introduction to CRS does not cover non-geographic cases (#392)
Linda CRS intro does not talk about non geospatial - eg planetary bodies
jtandy - Close as text of intro changed...
Linda Next issue 382
<tidoust> How do we ensure alignment between terminology used in BP and new spatial ontology? (#382)
Linda josh has started work on spatial ontology but will not be finished
jtandy Issue 6 months old, agree that alignment not possible now - how do we reference ongoing work ?
jtandy - new appendix list of file formats and voacbs could put a paragraph here ?
jtandy Andrea and billroberts working on this new appendix - put a green note about "new" spatial vocab here to be written by Josh
Linda - Next Appendix A Issue 237 scientific formats ?? NetCDF etc
<tidoust> Appendix A, common formats list: should scientific formats be included? (#237)
jtandy recognise these used often for coverage data - not very webby ?
billroberts - Lists are painful, always miss something
jtandy - Criteria - Open standard (UK gov view of Open) so not shape for example
jtandy Here is the list...
jtandy Currently in the appendix..
<jtandy> File format and vocabulary list:
<jtandy> simple:
<jtandy> - HTML plus json-ld <script> with schema.org vocab
<jtandy> web app:
<jtandy> - GeoJSON
<jtandy> - KML
<jtandy> - JSON?
<jtandy> - GeoRSS?
<jtandy> data integration:
<jtandy> - RDF serialisations...
<jtandy> - JSON-LD
<jtandy> - TTL
<jtandy> - NTRIPLES etc.
<jtandy> ... with associated vocabularies
<jtandy> > W3C Basic Geo, Schema.org GeoSPARQL, DCTerms, LOCN, GeoRSS, vCard?
<jtandy> spatial analysis:
<jtandy> - GML
<jtandy> - GML-SF0
jtandy - other criteria is that the data needs to be useable on the web - e.g. not download all of netcdf datafile
jtandy billroberts can you connect to Andrea and reply this discussion
billroberts - Need to restate criteria
jtandy - Open & Webby
<jtandy> 3 main criteria are: open + spatial (or a container a container for spatial) + webby (e.g. can work with it in a browser)
<jtandy> [convenient to parse in a browser]
<jtandy> [without any special plugins]
billroberts - what does that mean ? open anything is a browser thats non-binanry
<jtandy> + mustn't be a "one organisation" format
billroberts - will look at list and come back...
<Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/223
Linda Next Issue 223
Linda Illustrate role of SDI's
Linda - Section 10 why do more that the traditional SDI...
Linda - I think we have done this
Linda - We can close
jtandy - yes
<jtandy> Proposal: we close Github Issue 223 because we have already put the necessary text into section 10
<jtandy> +1
<Linda> +1
+1
Resolved: we close Github Issue 223 because we have already put the necessary text into section 10
<billroberts> +1
Linda: Next Issue 81 OLD one
<tidoust> Devise a way to make best versus emerging practices clearly recognizable in this document (#81)
jtandy Only one was use of Void - all will be in the emerging interoperability section
jtandy - Source Linda your paper
jtandy - issues where we have no recommendation - a bear trap !!
<jtandy> Proposed: there are no emerging practices in the body of the document, any emerging practices will be referenced in conclusions section "open interoperability issues" (or somesuch)
<jtandy> +1
<jtandy> Proposed: there are no emerging practices in the body of the document, any emerging practices will be referenced in conclusions section "open interoperability issues" (or somesuch) - so we are closing GitHub Issue 81
+1
<tidoust> +1
<billroberts> +1
<Linda> +1
<jtandy> +1
Resolved: there are no emerging practices in the body of the document, any emerging practices will be referenced in conclusions section "open interoperability issues" (or somesuch) - so we are closing GitHub Issue 81
jtandy Do these have reference in the document
action linda cross reference github with document for closes issues
<trackbot> Created ACTION-307 - Cross reference github with document for closes issues [on Linda van den Brink - due 2017-04-12].
<Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/38
jtandy Mapping of vocabs we are not going to be able to do - suggest we close
jtandy - Don't have time or resources within the SDW group
<jtandy> Proposed: we will close GitHub Issue 38 (vocabulary mapping) because we have neither the time nor resource to do this - the follow on group could pick this up if need be
<Linda> +1
+1
<tidoust> +1
<jtandy> +1
Resolved: we will close GitHub Issue 38 (vocabulary mapping) because we have neither the time nor resource to do this - the follow on group could pick this up if need be
https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/230
<Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/225
Linda: Can be discussed with #229 and #225
… I made a comment on #225 this afternoon.
… We should probably update the abstract
… Sections 9, 12.5 and 12.7 could be amended
jtandy: We were advocating a linked data approach. Use URIs for things and link to other people things, but we also said that we do not want to be overly dependent on RDF.
… The other sections look good now.
Linda: I agree. Only the abstract needs to be adjusted now.
eparsons: I agree. The gist of it, we've already addressed.
jtandy: We're now a much more balanced document in that regard
billroberts: Yes, if you're talking about the web, you're talking about URIs and links. Linked data is not really more than that.
jtandy: I agree that we don't want to give the message that RDF is the only solution. [quoting from the linked data section]
… You can do linked data with RDF, microformats, lots of things
Linda: So agreement that we just need to update the Abstract?
jtandy: Affirmative.
<jtandy> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#Editorial
<jtandy> Linda vd Brink | Update Abstract to reflect Linked Data approach without reliance on RDF
jtandy: I see you closed #230, I'll just add a note about reference to linked data principles in BP14.
… #229 is closed as well, good.
… Do we want to make sure that Eric is comfortable with that?
Linda: Will do.
Linda: Jeremy, you re-wrote a sentence in the introduction, so I guess we can close it.
jtandy: I cannot think of anything else that we could do, so I agree.
<jtandy> Proposed: we close GitHub Issue 205 (concerning "interoperability" as a top-level goal) as we have already update the BP doc to reflect this
<Linda> +1
<jtandy> +1
+1
<billroberts> +1
Resolved: we close GitHub Issue 205 (concerning "interoperability" as a top-level goal) as we have already update the BP doc to reflect this
<eparsons> +1
Linda: About current BP1, some inconsistency. Also DCAT is not the only solution.
… Josh's work should have addressed this already.
[having a look at Josh's work in https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/624 ]
jtandy: I'm content that Josh's work has addressed this. There is also an action on me to update BP4 about ensuring that your metadata is also accessible.
<jtandy> see my task here: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#BP4:_Make_you_data_indexable_by_search_engines
<jtandy> "Minor edits to reflect discussion about 'indexable dataset metadata' (e.g. dataset landing pages) during Delft F2F
<jtandy> "
jtandy: So I think we can close that one.
<jtandy> Proposed: close GitHub Issue 520 (about dataset metadata) as Josh's updates (plus Jeremy's planned edits to BP4) resolve this concern
<Linda> +1
+1
<eparsons> +1
<jtandy> +1
Resolved: close GitHub Issue 520 (about dataset metadata) as Josh's updates (plus Jeremy's planned edits to BP4) resolve this concern
<Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/482
Linda: I think the link is gone by now.
eparsons: BP11
<jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 482 (target URL not resolving) - this is time expired aas we no longer include this in an example
<Linda> +1
<eparsons> +1
+1
<jtandy> +1
<billroberts> +1
Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 482 (target URL not resolving) - this is time expired aas we no longer include this in an example
<Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/383
Linda: Covered in BP14, I think
jtandy: Yes.
<jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 383 (about spatial relations) - this is now covered in BP14
<Linda> +1
<jtandy> +1
<eparsons> +1
+1
Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 383 (about spatial relations) - this is now covered in BP14
jtandy: I suggest we flag it for Andrea and leave it open.
… I'm going to copy that in BP11 and add that he should check that up as well.
<Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/231
jtandy: I re-wrote the appendix, now absorbed in different parts of the document.
… Under BP14.
<jtandy> http://data.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/id/7000000000030505
jtandy: The fact is we're still using identifiers such as the above one.
eparsons: The problem is that he says they are not stable
jtandy: We got the detailed one and the 50k gazeteers
… Do we want to swap that out to GeoNames?
eparsons: These are illustrative. We're not expecting people to make use of them.
… But to answer Pete's point, we should address that.
<jtandy> In contrast, the resource identified by http://data.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/id/50kGazetteer/81103 defines Edinburgh as a named place of type city. This is not the same as the City of Edinburgh Area and therefore use of the owl:sameAs relationship is inappropriate.
<eparsons> http://www.geonames.org/2650225
jtandy: I think there should be a Geonames definition of Edinburgh that we could use.
<jtandy> https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-bp/#entity-level-links
jtandy: [quoting the current text, see above]. I'm suggesting that we substitute the 50KGazetteer URL with the GeoNames one.
eparsons: I'll do that.
<Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/214
Linda: The section does not really give you a methodology. Is this what the new appendix is giving you?
jtandy: No. There's a bunch of choices which means that you cannot just select a vocabulary right away. There are a number of categorizations of data publications, of which one of them is RDF.
… We reference the Data on the Web BP spec here.
… We're not going to give you a list.
… Bill, I think you're in the best position to tell whether we've sufficiently addressed this in the document?
billroberts: Looking at it.
… I'll get back to you offline. My feeling is that it's a good idea to refer to Data on the Web BP doc to help you choose a vocabulary rather than doing it in this document.
jtandy: I assigned the issue to you.
<Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/212
jtandy: Assigned to Peter Parslow.
<Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/206
Linda: Also related to the Glossary
… Jeremy, you did some changes to the definition of spatial data. Got some +1s, so people seem happy
<jtandy> Spatial data: Data describing anything with spatial extent; i.e. size, shape or position. In addition to describing things that are positioned relative to the Earth (also see geospatial data), spatial data may also describe things using other coordinate systems that are not related to position on the Earth, such as the size, shape and positions of cellular and sub-cellular features described using the 2D or 3D Cartesian coordinate system of a specific
<jtandy> tissue sample.
billroberts: We haven't really addressed anything non geospatial
jtandy: That's correct.
Linda: We did receive some comments that we are using the term "spatial" in slightly ambiguous ways sometimes. We could create an action to review that term in the last sprint.
jtandy: OK, I'm going to add it to the Editorial section.
eparsons: There is often confusion between spatial and geospatial. We're as guilty as anybody else.
Linda: If you add it to the editorial issue, then we can close this section.
jtandy: OK
<jtandy> tbd | Check that we are consistent in use of "geospatial" and "spatial" terms (see GitHub Issue 206)
<jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 206 (definition of spatial data) because the Glossary definition has now been updated - consistency check for use of geospatial vs spatial planned for editorial check during this sprint
<Linda> +1
+1
<jtandy> +1
<eparsons> +1
Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 206 (definition of spatial data) because the Glossary definition has now been updated - consistency check for use of geospatial vs spatial planned for editorial check during this sprint
<Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/195
jtandy: I think this is time expired
<jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 195 (about use of term subset) as this is now time expired following re-write of BP11 (etc.)
<Linda> +1
<eparsons> +1
<billroberts> +1
+1
<jtandy> +1
Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 195 (about use of term subset) as this is now time expired following re-write of BP11 (etc.)
jtandy: I think I re-wrote the introduction
… I think it's clear now.
<jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 190 (about audience) as rewrite to Audience section has now clarified our intended readersjip
<Linda> +1
<jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 190 (about audience) as rewrite to Audience section has now clarified our intended readership
<Linda> +1
<jtandy> +1
+1
<billroberts> +1
<eparsons> +1
Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 190 (about audience) as rewrite to Audience section has now clarified our intended readership
<Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/187
jtandy: Time expired
<jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 187 (about convenience APIs) as this is now time expired following substantial rewrite to both SDW BP11 and DWBP
<Linda> +1
+1
<jtandy> +1
<eparsons> +1
<billroberts> +1
Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 187 (about convenience APIs) as this is now time expired following substantial rewrite to both SDW BP11 and DWBP
<jtandy> [16:39:28] <Linda>
… +1
<Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/121
Linda: Can be closed, Josh re-wrote it.
jtandy: There's an action on Josh to add data snippets, which he agreed to do.
<jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 121 as Josh's rewrite of BP9 clarifies concerns about relative positioning
<Linda> +1
<eparsons> +1
<jtandy> +1
+1
Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 121 as Josh's rewrite of BP9 clarifies concerns about relative positioning
<Linda> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/39
Linda: Beware, we're doing archeology now. Really old issue.
eparsons: How widely used is "spatial thing" in the document?
jtandy: It's extensively used. We chose to use that term instead of features.
… I've referenced Peter Parslow and Josh in the issue.
jtandy has updated glossary notes
<jtandy> search for: published as part of Ordnance Survey’s 50K Gazetteer
jtandy: notes this reference as a place in the document where we discuss fuzzy definitions of a spatial thing
eparsons: this is probably as good as we can do
<jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 37 (about fuzzy spatial things) - discussion in BP14 now covers this aspect
<Linda> +1
<eparsons> +1
<jtandy> +1
+1
Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 37 (about fuzzy spatial things) - discussion in BP14 now covers this aspect
<jtandy> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_sorted_issue_list
linda: notes that GeoDCAT-AP is already covered in various places in the document but Andrea reopened the issue
<jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 35 (about reference to GeoDCAT-AP) - we reference in several places, and may reference it in BP8 too if Andrea thinks it is pertient to do so
<jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 35 (about reference to GeoDCAT-AP) - we reference in several places, and may reference it in BP8 too if Andrea thinks it is pertinent to do so
<Linda> +1
<eparsons> +1
+1
<jtandy> +1
Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 35 (about reference to GeoDCAT-AP) - we reference in several places, and may reference it in BP8 too if Andrea thinks it is pertinent to do so
<eparsons> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#Outstanding_public_comments
eparsons: process followed: went through email thread on archive to find who initially made the comment, looked through any responses in the thread, emailed the initial commenter to ask if they are happy with how we have dealt with it in updated versions of the document
<eparsons> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-comments/2015Jul/0007.html
eparsons: refers to hypermedia use. Largely out of scope
jtandy: charter says it's out of scope
<eparsons> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-comments/2016Feb/0038.html
eparsons: I think we should give the originator a little longer to respond, then close it
eparsons: came from a colleague of Linda at Geonovum. Covers discoverability and accessibility
eparsons: document structure has been improved since then and we have addressed the excessive focus on RDF. Waiting to hear back from Simeon on whether he agrees
<eparsons> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-comments/2016Feb/0007.html
eparsons: regarding potential use of DCAT or similar to partition larger datasets
eparsons: Jon Blower has responded on behalf of Maik Riechert to say Maik is happy to close it
eparsons: I'll update the wiki to note the status of each of the questions
phila: although formal resolution of public comments is not strictly necessary for a Note (rather than a recommendation) it is still best practice and will be useful
jtandy: notes that there is nothing substantive in the public comments which will cause any problems for finalising the document
jtandy: Linda to tidy up the wiki page to note that we have closed lots of issues
jtandy: there are still some issues remaining that need to be assigned to someone. How should we proceed?
Linda: Let's do that via email
Linda can make a suggestion on who to assign them to
jtandy: issue 509 assigned to Linda
jtandy: issue 381 assigned to jtandy
<jtandy> Proposed: Close GitHub Issue 215 (about IANA Link Relations Types of spatial relations) - this is deferred as discussed at Delft F2F
<Linda> +1
+1
<jtandy> +1
Resolved: Close GitHub Issue 215 (about IANA Link Relations Types of spatial relations) - this is deferred as discussed at Delft F2F
jtandy: spatial operators, issue 298.
linda: Clemens has taken this on
jtandy: issue 193, general editorial point - will add it to the editorial plan
linda: issue 222 is also editorial (consistency in how we cite specifications)
assigned to linda and jeremy
linda: issue 499 is me
linda: issue 654 is a recent addition. Minor correction to Geonames URIs (trailing slash). Assigned to Linda