– DRAFT –
Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

Approve Minutes https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌04/‌12-sdwbp-minutes

<AndreaPerego> +1

<ClemensPortele> +1

<Linda> +0 wasn't there

+1

<joshlieberman> +1

<LarsG> +0 wasn't there

Agree updated release schedule

WG email: https://‌lists.w3.org/‌Archives/‌Public/‌public-sdw-wg/‌2017Apr/‌0300.html

- Monday 8-May: freeze document (work finished on this sprint)

- Wednesday 10-May: WG vote to release

Propose: vote by correspondence for BP WD release

<joshlieberman> +1

<Linda> +1

<joshlieberman> as I'll be traveling that day

<AndreaPerego> +1

<LarsG> +1

<billroberts> +1

<MattPerry> +1

<ClemensPortele> +1

Resolved: vote by correspondence for BP WD release

... which means that the BP meeting on 10-May will be 15:00utc

- Friday 12-May: webinar** to present Best Practices to Technical Committee

(TC)

"at most a couple of slides"

plus reference the document to review.

<joshlieberman> Note from Scott that since drafts have been posted before, the 3-week rule is not hard and fast.

we would start the vote on 29 May, which ends the vote in mid-July. After the vote, there would be a 2-week electronic (email) vote by the PC.

(said Scott)

Any editorial changes post end of WG can be done by Geosemantics WG

OGC vote to start 29-May

TC vote end in mid-July

PC vote end at end-July

... to release as an OGC Best Practice document

Review (& hopefully resolve) open BP issues in GitHub

Sprint status review

<ClemensPortele> On the previous topic: "BP Documents shall be approved by formal electronic vote" (http://‌docs.opengeospatial.org/‌pol/‌05-020r24/‌05-020r24.html#85)

https://‌www.w3.org/‌2015/‌spatial/‌wiki/‌Detailed_planning_BP_document#Mid_March_-_end_of_April_2017:

<AndreaPerego> Revised version of format tables: http://‌lists.w3.org/‌Archives/‌Public/‌public-sdw-wg/‌2017Apr/‌0318.html

<joshlieberman> suggest using "encoding format"

<joshlieberman> AndreaPerego: proposing 2 separate tables, one for (encoding) formats, second for vocabularies.

<AndreaPerego> Rows from Clemens's table not included in the new format table:

<AndreaPerego> - Requires authoring of a vocabulary/schema for my data (or use of existing ones) - Supports reuse of third party vocabularies for features and properties - Supports extensions (geometry types, metadata, etc.) - Supports non-simple property values - Supports multiple values per property - Supports multiple geometries per feature - Support for non-linear interpolations in curves - Support for non-planar interpolations in surfaces

<joshlieberman> joshlieberman: where does that place languages (gml, rdf)?

<joshlieberman> Clemens: should have only 1 table for formats

<joshlieberman> jtandy: decision parameters include link support, which GeoJSON doesn't directly support (but JSON format does)

<joshlieberman> Andrea: JSON supports links, but they are not interpreted in GeoJSON standard.

josh: difference between inserting a URL into a literal text field and describing a hyperlink; the latter needs the link relation described with some additional pattern
… need to define what a link actually contains

<joshlieberman> Clemens: GeoJSON does not explicitly support linking

<joshlieberman> joshlieberman: some ambiguity with encoding versus language versus vocabulary

<joshlieberman> linda: difficult to untangle, but 2 tables may still be useful

<joshlieberman> Clemens: perfection is unattainable, but maybe we can inform without being too rigorous.

<joshlieberman> Clemens: paragraph of explaining table distinctions?

<joshlieberman> Andrea: linking to relevant BP sections help to clarify the classification of entries in the tables

<joshlieberman> joshlieberman: combination of explanatory paragraph and links to text should work

<joshlieberman> +1

<joshlieberman> jtandy: might be better to remove criterion of "stream-able"

Glossary: https://‌www.w3.org/‌2015/‌spatial/‌wiki/‌Detailed_planning_BP_document#Glossary

<joshlieberman> jtandy: Verifying the glossary needs a new owner...

<joshlieberman> jtandy: glossary issues #212, #39

<joshlieberman> Linda: #212 seems like a sizeable task

<joshlieberman> josh: can't take it on. Still finishing ogeo and GeoRSS docs

https://‌www.w3.org/‌2015/‌spatial/‌wiki/‌Detailed_planning_BP_document#Mid_March_-_end_of_April_2017:

<joshlieberman> Andrea: tackling BP5 soon

<joshlieberman> josh: tackling BP 9, 13 today

<billroberts> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌sdw/‌issues/‌214

<joshlieberman> jtandy: trying to refer back to DWBP there

<billroberts> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌sdw/‌issues/‌237

<joshlieberman> jtandy: no mention of coverage data types in BP at present, so good to add.

<joshlieberman> jtandy: Jon Blower has made a response to scientific data question

<joshlieberman> bill: new schedule works for completing tasks.

<joshlieberman> jtandy: BP14 still on my plate

<joshlieberman> jtandy: BP17 still a task for Andrea.

<joshlieberman> jtandy: Linda and I have work on conclusions, etc.

<Linda> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2015/‌spatial/‌wiki/‌BP_sorted_issue_list

Review (& hopefully resolve) open BP issues in GitHub

Review open public comments

<joshlieberman> jtandy: josh, andrea, bill still have outstanding items to resolve in github.

<billroberts> thanks - sorry got to go, bye!

<joshlieberman> bye

<ClemensPortele> thanks, bye!

<Linda> bye

<AndreaPerego> bye