Spatial Data on the Web IG

<scribe> Scribe: Ted

<scribe> scribenick: ted

[Peter Parslow, Peter Rushforth]

Linda: Welcome back, hope everyone is doing reasonably well. Assume most are working from home. I am and expect to for at least the near future
... we are allowed to start working from office next week
... Jeremy has been focused elsewhere but expressed his attention will be returning to us soon and synching up with him
... looking forward to sharing chair role with him again
... we are using WebEx still but it is possible to use Zoom at W3C or we can use something else like MS Teams if people prefer
... if you have preference please speak up

Group Status and Charter

<PeterR> was on a zoom call the other day, there was zoom spam in the comments. It was not a great experience.

Linda: we were working on rechartering this Spring and W3C Management has given us an extension until end of September and encouraging us to transform back to a Working Group
... given our standards activity it would make sense again. question is whether to also have an IG for non-standards work and incubate ideas
... not sure the logistics of having two groups
... any opinions?

<PeterR> ted: wg makes sense; ig chartered to do maintenance on specs, makes publishing more work

Linda: agree we are somewhat already behaving like a WG so better if we are one formally
... also agree one group would be better than one. When we were a WG we had various subgroups with different focuses and had a plenary overview

<billroberts> +1 to WG (and not an IG - only one group)

Linda: any other thoughts?

Michael: I completely agree with going back to a WG and as we have a very manageable number of participants also agree one group makes sense

<PeterP> +1 to WG; also to keeping "us" as just one group

[Rob Smith and Rob Atkinson]

Rob: I am happy to move early technical work in CG and report back to WG

Ted: fine until the work goes towards formal REC track at which point it needs to come over to the WG for patent process

Rob: we are far away from there and will certainly bring it to the WG when appropriate

<brinkwoman> https://w3c.github.io/sdw/roadmap/charter-2020.html

Linda: wherever you feel you have the best environment to get input needed makes sense and feel free to continue to use WG for feedback
... do you want the Note in the charter still?

Rob: absolutely. the CG is not very active but hope to grow it and use the IG/WG for guidance

Linda: we will ask for an update to WebVMT
... later in call
... what next with the charter?

Ted: current charter is extended and I can take a pass at converting this draft charter to a WG one before next meeting

Linda: we have an opportunity now to add new work to this charter
... I figured we should go through our active topics of interest and see if there are new ideas, status report or questions of group
... first is SDW Best Practices. on github I see an issue regarding data ethics, that might be something we take on but there may be other ideas around SDWBP
... it has been a few years and there may be things in need of updating, better practices compared to ones we wrote down...

<MichaelGordon> Worth noting that OS and Geovation have started a data ethics programme - https://benchmarkinitiative.com/

Linda: who is interested in evaluating it for updates?

Bill: we have found it very useful. it would be good to do an update, may not be that substantive but happy to work on that review

Linda: I would appreciate that review and reporting back what you feel may need updates

RobA: I am happy to be involved, nothing coming to mind immediately but will participate in review

Linda: good, if you can do a quick pass too

Clemens: I would add me to the list. there probably are some new developments from W3C, JSONLD and OGC
... it would be worthwhile to see how to include in examples and other parts

RobS: I have an issue regarding video metadata on the web. if you add location to video and publish it on the web, you are effectively creating a unique signature that can be tied to an individual
... we may want to give guidance

Linda: that is becoming particularly relevavent at present. there are privacy questions about government being able to track people based on data they are producing

RobS: same in UK. there is interest in contact tracking based on who an infected individual might have come in contact with
... that is fine but ripe for misuse

Linda: that ties into the ethics question for sure

Ted: @@GDPR and purpose, should encumber data at outset

Linda: an explainer would also help quite a bit
... next is Time ontology which is actively maintained
... Simon sent his regrets and willing to continue his work. Chris Little agrees to remain available as reviewer
... we have drafts for ontologies that can go onto REC track when we recharter as a WG
... I regularly see issues and questions raised on these ontologies demonstrating clear, wider interest
... WebVMT Note, Rob can you give us an update?

RobS: since my last report in November we have a new use case based on augmented reality
... there has been progress with the WICG to prototype data cue in browsers
... we have a pilot proposal for an unknown cue time. we are getting browser developers onboard and interested
... involved in OGC testbed 16. presented WebVMT at that kickoff virtual meeting in April
... task is to convert video to include moving features (@@RobSmith update details or provide pointer)
... the golden tutorial is basically an instruction for correct use of AR interface. WebVMT can be used for debugging, not a replacement for ARML
... I have put together a roadmap for future changes, some significant
... one reformat required for animation
... data sync adds arbitrary data, synchronized to the video. CSS for layout including discussion with those working on 'bullet chat'
... 3D coordinates to include altitude. including data descriptors for search something I am still working on to demo

Linda: you presented at OGC Testbed 16 but do not have a sponsor yet?

RobS: correct, working as an observer at present. trying to showcase and get interest
... there is more work at present at military and traffic applications

Linda: next on my list is GeoSPARQL
... we have done some work on a change request to the OGC standard, written a whitepaper on relevance of semantic web technology to geospatial data
... group forming at OGC for updating GeoSPARQL. at present it is not planned to be a joint activity to W3C

Bill: would appreciate link to the whitepaper

<brinkwoman> https://github.com/opengeospatial/geosemantics-dwg

<brinkwoman> you can find the whitepaper there

Bill: my organization is not a member of OGC and wonder if there is a way I can provide contributions via some mechanism

Linda: I expect the work will be public, using github repo

<billroberts> thanks for the link!

Bill: perfect, can raise things as issues

RobA: in addition to CSIRO, the other organization @@org I work with will be participating, Nick in particular

Linda: I wanted to also touch on routing. work has started on API, ontology at OGC

Ted summarizes the coordination with ITS, SmartCities, OGC and W3C

Clemens: we are working on routing API and ontology. I see the motivation similar to observations and sensors work

Linda: is there anything this group needs to do as monitoring?

Clemens: at the moment no, others welcome to participate. later if there is more substance we will report back

PeterR: wanted to announce the Maps4HTML workshop originally planned to be collocated at the OGC meetings in June

<brinkwoman> https://www.w3.org/2020/maps/

PeterR: now will be series of webinars in September, encourage people from this group to participate

Linda: it is an interesting workshop and several people in this group interested. I encourage people to look at it
... how is MapML going?

<ClemensPortele_> The main goal of the Transportation Ontology Coordination Committee (TOCC) in my view is to identify common concepts and terminology as a common ground, so that communities can map their concepts and terminology the route ontology.

PeterR: in Testbed 16 and working to promote the activity

<ClemensPortele_> The TOCC at the moment includes ISO JTC1 Smart Cities, ISO TC204 ITS and OGC.

<ClemensPortele_> In OGC work on routes is progressing and a draft charter for a new standards working group is being developed.

PeterR: trying to engage browser developers. one challenge is people are not seeing HTML as a rapidly evolving technology but it is ubiquitous
... hence our interest on integrating the two
... we have a number of people active in promoting the workshop

RobA: there are a couple things I would like to gauge interest

<PeterR> Link to Maps for HTML / the Web workshop call for participation: https://www.w3.org/2020/maps/

<PeterP> +q

<brinkwoman> peter we lost your audio

<PeterR> once every 4 weeks: +1

<RobSmith> +1

<PeterP> +1

<MichaelGordon> +1

<PeterR> not sure how to show a resolution, but here goes

RESOLUTION: meet once every four weeks

<PeterR> proposal to keep meetings to one hour duration

<PeterR> MichaelGordon: brains melt so one hour and / or have ad hocs as required

<PeterR> brinkwoman: had planned to meet at tpac, but tpac will be remote/virtual only, so sdwig will have an online meeting during tpac

<PeterR> brinkwoman: ogc meetings: June is virtual, one in September not yet decided. Not planning physical face to face meeting of sdwig in September

<PeterR> Thank you to Linda from everyone

<PeterP> tx

<billrobe_> bye!