06:37:24 RRSAgent has joined #sdw 06:37:24 logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/10/23-sdw-irc 06:37:28 Zakim has joined #sdw 06:37:34 RRSAgent, make logs public 06:37:36 jtandy has joined #sdw 06:37:44 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web IG - TPAC F2F - Day 2/2 06:37:49 Present+ jtandy 06:37:59 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2017/sdwig/meetings/f2f-3.html 06:38:08 ClemensPortele has joined #sdw 06:38:10 Chair: Linda, Jeremy 06:38:24 present+ ClemensPortele 06:38:31 SimonCox has joined #sdw 06:38:34 billroberts has joined #sdw 06:38:39 present+ 06:38:43 present+ 06:38:45 present+ brinkwoman 06:38:52 present+ Francois_Daoust 06:39:24 RobSmith has joined #sdw 06:40:42 Michael_Jacoby has joined #SDW 06:41:49 present+ Jeremy_Tandy 06:41:56 present+ Bill_Roberts 06:42:06 present+ Peter_Rushforth 06:42:41 mlefranc has joined #sdw 06:42:45 present+ Michael_Gordon 06:43:17 present+ Michael_Jacoby 06:43:25 Topic: Introductions 06:43:51 PeterRushforth has joined #sdw 06:43:56 satakagi has joined #sdw 06:44:19 scribenick: tidoust 06:44:36 present+ 06:45:06 ChrisLittle has joined #sdw 06:45:15 present+ 06:45:15 [see yesterday's minutes for most people. Clemens, Michael Jacoby, Simon, and Maxime introduce themselves to the group 06:45:28 s/group/group] 06:45:36 MichaelGordon has joined #sdw 06:46:05 Jeremy recaps yesterday's discussions. 06:47:48 Discussions on WebVMT, MapML, CityJSON, Statistical Data on the Web, link with moving objects and ARML with Immersive Web folks who were in the room. 06:48:08 Topic: SSN Extensions 06:48:37 Simon: No significant updates since last time we talked. 06:49:42 ... [showing the extensions document] 06:50:23 ... These are the two extensions. I decided to put them in a separate document, with the intention that it be published as a Note by the Interest Group. 06:51:51 ... Two concerns: the feature of interest of an observation, active sampling... is always a proximate feature of interest. However, for many use cases, as far as the users are concerned, the thing of interest may not be that immediate feature of interest, which may be a sample of a sample of a feature of interest. 06:52:32 ... [example of rock properties and aquifer] 06:52:41 s/concerns/features/ 06:53:00 ... First feature is to add a relation to link to the ultimate feature of interest. 06:53:55 q+ 06:54:53 ... [scribe interrupted by himself, missed a few sentences] 06:55:37 ... A set of observations would always be made as a collection. The second feature provides the equivalent in the SSN style. 06:56:06 ... Describe all the observations of a slice in the data cube. This allows us to have an alternative view. 06:56:23 q? 06:56:35 ... The extensions are simply the definition of one new class and two properties. 06:56:56 Q? 06:57:03 ... Class is ObservationCollection, properties are hasMember and hasUltimateFeatureOfInterest. 06:57:40 ... Given a sampling chain, you can derive the ultimate feature of interest using rules described in the doc in SPARQL. 06:58:05 ... I only considered collection of observations because of the data cube case. 06:58:43 ... I'm working with Eric Prudhommeaux to rewrite rules in ShEx. 06:58:50 ack mlefranc 06:58:58 q+ 07:00:05 Maxime: Three questions. On the ultimate feature of interest, would it make sense to switch [bad quality audio]? 07:01:24 Simon: I think it does not make sense. You can navigate by following the sample chain. 07:01:54 Maxime: Regarding ObservationCollection, would it make sense to define it as well for Actuation? 07:02:02 Simon: I think it would make sense, yes. 07:02:22 ... I'm less familiar with actuation use cases. I'm much more familiar with observation use cases. 07:02:49 Maxime: OK. In 4.1.1, some proof reading may be needed. 07:03:37 ... Question around ShEx 07:04:06 Simon: I must say I'm not familiar with ShEx. More with SHACL. I didn't get the SPARQL construct to work. 07:04:58 Maxime: The rule on hasUltimateFeatureOfInterest seems very complicated, can you explain it? 07:05:25 Q? 07:05:36 Simon: [going through the rule] 07:06:27 ... There are some test cases in the GitHub repository. It might be implemented more efficiently. This appeared to get the proper results according to the test cases I prepared. 07:07:05 ack ChrisLittle 07:07:22 ChrisLittle: A trivial point. I noticed "transitively" spelled wrongly. 07:07:28 https://github.com/w3c/sdw/projects/7 07:07:28 SimonCox: I will fix that. 07:08:11 jtandy: If we look at the project page, it says that you're working on validating SPARQL queries in 4.3, is that now complete? 07:08:18 SimonCox: Still waiting for feedback from Eric. 07:08:54 jtandy: The second one is on understanding the relationship between ObservationCollection and RDF Data Cube. 07:09:47 SimonCox: Still need to write something down. I've learnt a lot about RDF Data Cube in the recent months with experts. That has convinced me that this extension is the right thing to do, but I still need to formulate that in the doc. 07:10:03 q+ 07:10:24 q+ 07:10:55 billroberts: In the discussion we had yesterday, we said that the scope of the Statistical Data on the Web Best Practices should be government statistics and scientific statistics, so the work you're describing here about aligning with the RDF Data Cube seems very useful. 07:11:06 see DXWG strawman here https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/wiki/Data-aspects-semantics 07:11:52 SimonCox: The DDI people have something called DISCO 07:12:43 ... Halfway down the page I pasted, there is a proposed research data profile of DCAT. 07:13:23 ... A research dataset would have a rectangular dataset, which could be an RDF Data Cube. The idea being that we're looking at an homogeneous collection of data. 07:14:02 ... The current proposal has schema.org terms. 07:14:54 jtandy: The last piece that you have on the project page is adding examples in section 5. That's still work to do? 07:15:14 SimonCox: Yes. If anyone wants to join... 07:15:46 jtandy: You're still the only person who's editing the document. 07:15:48 Q? 07:16:13 SimonCox: That's right. If you look at the repository, there is an example folded in there. 07:16:17 ack mlefranc 07:16:25 I'll comment the table of contents of https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/ 07:17:20 mlefranc: Regarding alignment with Data Cube, just glanced over it, I don't think that's quite comparable. 07:18:05 ... [audio still bad] 07:18:32 ... The ObservationCollection is a very simple case of data cubes and I don't think that we need to go to the full depth of data cubes. 07:19:32 SimonCox: Right. ObservationCollection is much more flexible. These things are clearly related. I agree that it does not make sense to do systemic axomization. 07:19:50 ... I'll point out what you cannot do with a Data Cube and that you can do with this. 07:19:57 ack ChrisLittle 07:20:20 ChrisLittle: Trying to understand what a rectangular dataset is, is it a non-sparse dataset? 07:20:24 SimonCox: Yes. 07:21:57 ChrisLittle: I'm trying to write a white paper about portrayal in the OGC. Connecting to the data cube sort of works provided observations can be features. 07:22:12 jtandy: An observation is a feature, right? 07:22:18 SimonCox: Yes. 07:22:31 jtandy: In that sense, that's a permissive statement for doing what you want. 07:23:18 SimonCox: There's increased interest in this work both within the SDW IG and in Australia. 07:23:40 jtandy: Your intention is to publish this as a Note. What do you need before we're ready to publish as a Note? 07:24:08 SimonCox: I need to tidy the document. The cross-review that happened today has been useful, more would be good. 07:24:37 ... What would be the decision process for the IG to publish this as a W3C Note? 07:24:39 q+ 07:25:05 jtandy: This group can agree to publish notes without problem. It's just up to us to agree that it's ready to go. 07:26:04 ... When we were in WG phase, we had a vote. It would be useful to have a proposal in front of the group. From my perspective, it would be good to have a timeline and to be able to point to evidence of implementation. 07:26:16 ack tidoust 07:26:41 +1 to FPWD ! 07:26:55 tidoust: publish as a working draft first would be good 07:27:06 ... to invite external feedback 07:27:20 SimonCox: makes total sense 07:27:33 tidoust: we can decide to publish a FPWD today 07:28:10 jtandy: Right, if you're content, Simon, I would propose to do the vote now. 07:28:26 SimonCox: Right, I just need to make some editorial fixes. 07:28:34 Chrisjarvis has joined #sdw 07:28:49 jtandy: OK, with this caveat, I would propose that we publish this document as FPWD. 07:29:25 PROPOSAL: Publish the SSN Extensions draft as First Public Working Draft (once editorial fixes are in) 07:29:29 +1 to FPWD after editorial fixes 07:29:32 +1 07:29:33 +1 07:29:33 +1 07:29:33 +1 to FPWD, congrats Simon 07:29:36 +1 07:29:36 +1 07:29:38 +1 07:29:43 +1 07:29:52 RESOLUTION: Publish the SSN Extensions draft as First Public Working Draft (once editorial fixes are in) 07:30:26 jtandy: I'll let you work with Francois to get the document published as FPWD. From then we'll get external review and then publish as final Note. 07:31:20 Topic: SSN/SOSA ontology amendments 07:31:40 jtandy: Two oustanding issues #1006 and #1022 07:32:12 ... What I'd like to do is to come to a resolution to these issues. 07:33:19 s/to these/on these 07:33:40 -> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1006 Move hasProperty from SSN to SOSA namespace (#1006) 07:34:30 SimonCox: Regarding #1006, the proposal was that one of the properties in the SSN namespace would arguably have been better in the core namespace. My sense is that making that change at this stage would be difficult procedurally. 07:34:41 jtandy has joined #sdw 07:34:53 ... It would involve making a normative change to the spec. I'm not sure that's in scope of the Interest Group. 07:35:00 Q? 07:35:27 jtandy: So your view is that it's normative, the change will break existing implementations. 07:36:07 not sameAs, but equivalentProperty 07:36:32 SimonCox: Yes. However, it would make sense to add an hasProperty property to the SOSA namesapce and then add a sameAs property (well equivalentProperty according to Maxime's comment) 07:36:35 Q? 07:36:36 q+ 07:36:41 ack mlefranc 07:39:20 [recognition that it was a mistake in the WG] 07:39:37 SimonCox: Adding a property would work, but it's not an erratum. It's a new feature. 07:39:53 jtandy: My feeling is that you shouldn't remove it from the SSN namespace. 07:40:07 not a mistake to me (we voted), but we could not make up our minds sufficiently on time 07:40:08 ... If we can treat this as an erratum, that would be great. 07:40:36 tidoust: from a process perspective its a new feature, not an erratum 07:40:55 ... in this case we could argue it was a mistake but then the group would have to agree it's a mistake 07:41:11 q+ 07:41:35 q- 07:41:47 ... I need to get a green light internally to bend the process a little bit 07:41:55 Q? 07:42:29 1. add sosa:hasProperty in sosa.ttl 07:42:37 AndreaPerego has joined #sdw 07:42:43 present+ AndreaPerego 07:42:51 please add also axiom ssn:hasProperty owl:propertyChainAxiom ( [ owl:inverseOf sosa:hasFeatureOfInterest ] sosa:observedProperty ) . 07:42:56 2. add ssn:hasProperty owl:equivalentProperty sosa:hasProperty . to ssn.ttl 07:43:01 (see end of issue 1006) 07:43:14 PROPOSAL: Add an hasProperty property to the SOSA namespace, with an equivalentProperty axiom as an errata change 07:43:18 yes to SimonCox #2 too 07:44:09 3. ssn:hasProperty owl:propertyChainAxiom ( [ owl:inverseOf sosa:hasFeatureOfInterest ] sosa:observedProperty ) . to ssn.ttl 07:44:47 [discussion about axiomatization and notably #3 in the list above] 07:45:06 jtandy: So, from your perspective, these 3 points make sense to you 07:46:43 PROPOSAL: After checking with other SSN editors, add an hasProperty property to the SOSA namespace, with an "ssn:hasProperty owl:equivalentProperty sosa:hasProperty" axiom, and "ssn:hasProperty owl:propertyChainAxiom ( [ owl:inverseOf sosa:hasFeatureOfInterest ] sosa:observedProperty )" as errata change 07:46:54 +1 07:46:55 +1 07:46:57 +1 07:46:58 +1 07:47:02 +1 07:47:02 +1 07:47:03 +1 07:47:04 +1 07:47:07 +1 07:47:10 +1 07:47:15 RESOLUTION: After checking with other SSN editors, add an hasProperty property to the SOSA namespace, with an "ssn:hasProperty owl:equivalentProperty sosa:hasProperty" axiom, and "ssn:hasProperty owl:propertyChainAxiom ( [ owl:inverseOf sosa:hasFeatureOfInterest ] sosa:observedProperty )" as errata change 07:47:22 q? 07:47:32 jtandy: Simon and Maxime, can you check that with other editors? 07:47:47 SimonCox: I'll do it. 07:48:30 jtandy: Then update #1006. If that comes back as a positive, can you check whether that's possible, Francois? 07:48:33 tidoust: Yes. 07:50:11 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 07:50:11 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/23-sdw-minutes.html AndreaPerego 07:50:15 [discussion on giving other editors two weeks to answer, and consider lack of response as assent] 07:50:49 -> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1022 07:50:49 Inverse property for ssn:hasSubSystem (#1022) 07:51:27 mlefranc: The commenter claims that it cannot use the property as-is. 07:51:47 q? 07:51:52 ... For me, this does not make sense, the inverseProperty relation means that you can use properties as-is. 07:52:10 ... I suggest not making any change. 07:54:06 ... This would require creating a new property in the normative section of the SSN. I don't think that we want to do that. 07:54:33 ... It's just syntactic sugar. 07:54:40 Note that the proposer did not respond to Maxime's response to his proposal. Maybe lost interest? 07:54:50 ... It could be added to a possible v2, but not now. 07:54:56 q+ 07:55:17 jtandy has joined #sdw 07:55:19 Q? 07:55:29 ack SimonCox 07:55:50 SimonCox: I note the issue was raised back in March, Maxime responded within 2 days, and the commenter did not respond, so may have lost interest. 07:56:13 +1 07:57:43 PROPOSAL: Re. #1022, we will not add an inverse property for ssn:hasSubSystem, because this would introduce a normative change, and can be done in one's own applications 07:57:51 +1 07:57:53 +1 07:57:54 +1 07:57:55 +1 07:57:56 +1 07:57:57 +1 07:57:58 +1 07:57:58 +1 07:57:59 +1 07:57:59 +1 07:58:03 +1 07:58:05 +1 07:58:07 +1 07:58:12 RESOLUTION: Re. #1022, we will not add an inverse property for ssn:hasSubSystem, because this would introduce a normative change, and can be done in one's own applications 07:58:14 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 07:58:14 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/23-sdw-minutes.html AndreaPerego 07:59:46 Q? 08:00:19 Topic: Time ontology amendments 08:00:37 jtandy: Two outstanding issues there as well #987 and #988. 08:01:21 ... When we exchanged over email, the feeling that we didn't want to address the issue because it would introduce breaking changes and we explicitly favoured backward compatibility. 08:01:53 SimonCox: Right. This was brought two months after publication. 08:02:44 ... With the Time Ontology, we were dealing with artefacts that dated back 10 years, and some of the changes that are being proposed would break up some of these artefacts, so even if it had been brought in time, we wouldn't have been able to incorporate it as-is. 08:03:30 ... It would be hard to remove gDay, gMonth, gYear without breaking existing implementations. 08:04:13 ChrisLittle: There's a kind of conflict between doing something that is good enough, and trying to go to the last detail. We know it's brittle, and I'm happy with the road we took. 08:05:06 PROPOSAL: Re #987 and #988, we will not make no change to the Time Ontology on the basis that the aim of the Time ontology was to ensure backward compatibility with existing implementations. 08:05:25 q+ 08:05:42 PROPOSAL: Re #987 and #988, we will not make any change to the Time Ontology on the basis that the aim of the Time ontology was to ensure backward compatibility with existing implementations. 08:06:07 s/#987 and #988/#987/ 08:08:04 [We marked datetime as deprecated. We did fiddle with the exact datatypes. We could perhaps do the same thing with gDay, gMonth, gYear. We could recommend people not to use these properties] 08:09:05 +1 08:10:43 [There would be implications though, because we're not proposing alternatives, so marking them deprecated does not make sense] 08:10:46 PROPOSAL: Re #987, we will not make any change to the Time Ontology on the basis that the aim of the Time ontology was to ensure backward compatibility with existing implementations. 08:10:54 +1 08:10:56 +1 08:10:58 +1 08:10:59 +1 08:11:00 +1 08:11:02 +1 08:11:02 +1 08:11:05 +1 08:11:07 +1 08:11:07 +1 08:11:09 +1 08:11:14 +1 08:11:22 RESOLUTION: Re #987, we will not make any change to the Time Ontology on the basis that the aim of the Time ontology was to ensure backward compatibility with existing implementations. 08:12:40 SimonCox: #988 is different. It describes a requirement for recurring time. 08:13:06 ... If it had come up 3 years ago, I think we would have considered to include it. 08:13:08 RobSmith has joined #sdw 08:13:28 ... It's just a little bit out of scope of what was considered for OWL Time and therefore not treated. 08:13:58 ... If anyone has the appetite to develop an extension to the ontology, then that could fit there. 08:16:04 PROPOSAL: Re. #988, it introduces a useful requirement to introduce recurring instants, but addition to the OWL Time ontology would require re-chartering the group. The Interest Group is not planning on working on this feature for now, but would welcome an extension proposal. 08:16:23 +1 08:16:23 +1 08:16:30 +1 08:16:39 +1 08:16:48 +1 08:16:49 +1 08:16:59 +1 08:17:06 +1 08:18:26 +1 08:18:28 +1 08:18:32 RESOLUTION: Re. #988, it introduces a useful requirement to introduce recurring instants, but addition to the OWL Time ontology would require re-chartering the group. The Interest Group is not planning on working on this feature for now, but would welcome an extension proposal. 08:18:36 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 08:18:36 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/23-sdw-minutes.html AndreaPerego 08:18:57 Q? 08:19:05 ack mlefranc 08:19:08 ack 08:19:16 jtandy: Any other comments? 08:19:29 [20mn break] 08:19:38 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 08:19:38 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/23-sdw-minutes.html tidoust 08:28:21 satakagi has joined #sdw 08:38:10 brinkwoman has joined #sdw 08:39:19 Q? 08:42:17 mmocny has joined #sdw 08:42:49 scribenick: ChrisLittle 08:42:56 scribe: Chris Little 08:42:57 RobSmith has joined #sdw 08:43:04 PeterRushforth has joined #sdw 08:43:21 Topic:SDW Best Practices 08:43:58 scribe: Chris Little 08:43:59 Present+ jtandy 08:45:10 MichaelGordon has joined #sdw 08:47:09 MichaelGordon: SDW BP agenda status, Inspire, Google searchc and etc 08:47:47 ... Published a summary of BPs being used 08:48:22 ... current focus now encouraging adoption 08:49:24 ClemensPortele: report on BP making data searchable, wrote report about EU Inspire initiative 08:50:05 ... and Google dataset search released in Sept 2018 08:50:07 https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/InspireMIG/Google+Dataset+Search+workshop+2018-09-19 08:50:51 jtandy has joined #sdw 08:51:12 ... EU Data Portal, JRC also present at workshop 08:51:42 ... discussed indexing both datasets and individual 'objects' 08:52:21 ... JRC Inspire Implementation Group experimenting with indexing with schema.org 08:52:58 ... more activity planned in several European countries 08:53:43 MichaelGordon: question sbout any potential new BPs or changes to exsting BPs? 08:54:45 q? 08:55:11 ClemensPortele: interested in improving the search results. What works, what does not, to imporive future guidance, especially at objectg level. 08:55:47 s/objectg/object/ 08:56:16 s/imporive/improve/ 08:56:36 sangchul has joined #sdw 08:56:38 ClemensPortele: looking at the paging aspect of results in the next few months 08:56:44 q+ to report about related work in DXWG (in case Simon didn't do that already...) 08:57:26 ack AndreaPerego 08:57:26 AndreaPerego, you wanted to report about related work in DXWG (in case Simon didn't do that already...) 08:57:28 MichaelGordon: two implementation reports: Clemens, Australian and potentially a third from Netherlands 08:58:21 IngoSimonis has joined #sdw 08:58:34 q+ 08:58:41 AndreaPerego: W3C DXWG work relevant. revising the Data Catalogue vocabulary to include services as first class citizens, such as OGC services, APIs, etc. 08:58:51 Call for comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-comments/2018Oct/0001.html 08:59:07 DCAT 2nd draft: https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat-2/ 08:59:42 ... should enable better use of 08:59:54 ... DCAT for geospatial data 09:00:46 ... European profile of DCAT, DCAT-AP exists 09:01:14 ... services in geospatial domain becoming more important, in US and Europe. 09:01:40 ... and in different sectors and domains 09:02:03 ... exposing more capabilities 09:02:24 ack ClemensPortele 09:02:25 ... welcome review of the drafts 09:02:59 DCAT schema: https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat-2/#fig1 09:03:04 ClemensPortele: services overlap with distributions. What is the distinction? 09:03:44 Q? 09:04:25 AndreaPerego: services in DCAT are not equivalent. Data Service to give access. Distribution links the data to the service. 09:04:49 ClemensPortele: preferred the older approach which is much clearer 09:05:01 Q? 09:05:21 MichaelGordon: need to review BPs wherever they are mentioned in DCAT 09:06:13 jtandy: proposing to observe DXWG on Friday. Will review the docs 09:07:12 MichaelGordon: summary: two complete implementation reports, with scorecard on GitHub 09:08:08 ... reports summarises 'conformance' for each BP 09:08:30 ... shold help idnetify any common approaches 09:09:10 ... All implement most of the BPs, except #14 09:10:39 q+ to ask if there's any idea why BP14 is not implemented. 09:11:02 q? 09:11:02 ... BP2 indexing not granular because of millions of objects, and pagination an issue. Need to discuss with Google. 09:11:28 q+ 09:11:33 ClemensPortele: what is the business valaue of indexing all the invidual objects? 09:11:48 s/valaue/value/ 09:11:57 Q? 09:12:08 MichaelGordon: An existing URI does not imply need to index that item. 09:12:32 ack AndreaPerego 09:12:32 AndreaPerego, you wanted to ask if there's any idea why BP14 is not implemented. 09:13:26 ack RobSmith 09:13:26 MichaelGordon: will discuss BP 14 on next slide 09:13:39 Q+ 09:14:25 GeunHyung has joined #SDW 09:14:34 RobSmith: WebVMT could be used for indexing a video, but no feed back from Google after discussion with Ed Parsons 09:16:03 ... other use cases such as drones photoing offshore wind turbines, or YouTube. Need searching by location 09:16:43 ClemensPortele: most end user searches are for one individual thing. Published data not useful for this. 09:17:25 ack jtandy 09:18:35 jtandy: this is about indexing individual things,from multiple sources. Does this link to eixsting Google work? Asked of Google staff present. 09:19:04 ... dumb example: all post boxes in Lyon. 09:19:23 q+ 09:19:34 ClemensPortele: also buildings. People who live there are interested and involled 09:20:12 ... thnking of adding links to government services for that area 09:21:06 ... This is a useful set of stories, which ties in with video too, but this is not in current Google knowledge graph. 09:21:43 Michael from Google: Will ask about cost and size of problem 09:22:39 ClemensPortele: intention to do this publishing in HTML as well as other machinable formats 09:23:31 Q? 09:23:33 ack PeterRushforth 09:23:37 ClemensPortele: example of a parcel in a protected area could be demonstrated. 09:23:52 PeterRushforth: this is a MapML use case. 09:24:50 ... other things on the map could increase the page ranking 09:25:22 MichaelGordon: the spatial thing itself is more important than the map of it. 09:26:17 q+ 09:26:24 ClemensPortele: currently it is the schema.org thing that is indexed, in a JSON prepresentation, not the map. 09:26:25 Q? 09:27:03 PeterRushforth: assumes the objectson the map have metadata 09:27:07 ack mmocny 09:27:09 q+ 09:28:14 michael from Google: are there any currnet examples? different wyas such as service side, client side or dynamic? 09:29:17 ClemensPortele: implementor decides. easiest was with Leaflet queries for each media type, at client side 09:29:52 ack RobSmith 09:30:05 jtandy: We are encouraging people to publish better, not just 'here is a dataset@ 09:30:33 s/currnet/current/ 09:30:48 s/wyas/ways/ 09:31:13 RobSmith: is the location alread know to the search engines? 09:31:21 ClemensPortele: yes 09:31:33 tidoust_ has joined #sdw 09:31:38 https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool/u/0/#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ldproxy.nrw.de%2Ftopographie%2Fcollections%2Fax_bahnverkehrsanlage%2Fitems%2FDENWAT01D000AbNu 09:31:42 Q? 09:32:55 PeterRushforth: what if another item or incident nearby, perhaps on a different map, visible or linkable? 09:33:26 ... completely unrelated except by location proximity only 09:34:26 MichaelGordon: if things are actually touching/within etc OK, but 'near' is problematic 09:34:43 Q? 09:35:07 tidoust__ has joined #sdw 09:35:47 MichaelGordon: such a search with a bbox would work. 09:36:18 ClemensPortele: How much do you have to describe your data, with locations, to be useful? 09:36:25 GeunHyung has joined #SDW 09:36:25 Q? 09:37:28 jtandy: SDWWG advocated that spatial things should publish the locations, not all possible links 09:38:46 q+ 09:39:12 tidoust: surely the connection via the map can already be made by metadata existing for the objects on the map 09:40:31 q+ 09:40:35