SV_MEETING_TITLE -- 23 Jul 2020

Ethics/Responsible Use

<scribe> scribenick: ted

Jeremy: preference on what we call this topic?

Ed: responsible use more than ethics as discussed on call with chairs
... want to run through scope, naming and method we'll use for deliver a first draft by December
... Joe agreed to co-author which presents a timezone challenge
... key element is to focus only on things pertaining to spatial/temporal data
... I have shared the meeting url, if you let me know I can 'pre-register' you so you don't have to wait in meeting lobby

Ed's email

Ed: will focus on practical for app developers, mines to avoid with aim of keeping document succint

Jeremy: we are not to produce an academic but useful document, guidance for those publishing data on the web including inadvertent such as is common in photos

Ed: will highlight benefits from responsible use

Jeremy: this isn't a new problem but what is new is all the potential, ready uses from AI and in aggregate

<percivall> Data Ethics from Location Powers: Data Science http://docs.ogc.org/wp/20-001r2.html#_data_science_ethics

Ed: question I have is what is the logistics of putting this together in the IG, do I need a new repo, recurring call, process...

<percivall> The OGC GeoAI DWG is addressing Ethics in geospatial AI.

Jeremy: we are still using the same repo we were before and would recommend a folder there

https://github.com/w3c/respec/wiki/ReSpec-Editor's-Guide

Jeremy: ReSpec is a javascript tool for facilitating creating W3C specs

Ed: also interested in methodology used with respect to forking

Jeremy: what we tend to do is have editors push directly, substantive content changes in a pull request for review
... any questions for Ed?

Ed: more the merrier

<percivall> q/

Linda: a colleague of mine is interested in helping

Ed: will appreciate an introduction

Linda: will get them registered for mailing list

George: there is a location data ethics document worked on in OGC, not public yet and will provide Ed link to that part of report
... it includes guidance for Working Groups

Best Practices review update

Jeremy: Clara, while still early in your review process wonder if you have anything to share with the group?

Clara: still too early, currenly reviewing and will get back to the group soon

Jeremy: estimate on time?

Clara: should be ready in another week

Jeremy: do you want an adhoc call or start off in mailing list?

Clara: still getting use to the group and practices so defer to you

Jeremy: follow Ed's example and start a mail thread and call a meeting when comfortable. Ted can help with WebEx

Clara: prefer MS Teams, had issues with WebEx today

Ted: from W3C point of view, ok with whatever. I can schedule WebEx or Zoom on MIT's instances

Jeremy: thank you Clara for taking on the lead for this review

Charter update

Jeremy: Linda, Ted and I met earlier today on our draft recharter
... question about whether to make the Best Practices note more normative, prescriptive
... maybe Ted can tell us more about the difference

Ted: very little about best practices in our Process Document, I can take action to find out about additional criteria of a normative document

Jeremy: if we make bits of the Best Practices normative, it would be useful to get the motivations
... testing and implementation reports@@

Clemens: it is not really clear what that means. The way the current Best Practices is written includes how to test it so you could argue we are already doing that
... we can be more precise with 'shalls' etc. Some of the value of the current document is that it is non-specific technology guidance
... if we get specific we may start competing with other activities

Linda: any examples?

Clemens: OGC APIs... are we working on web compatible encodings
... we could strengthen some of the wording in there
... I'm not convinced we will see an increased benefit in being more normative

Jeremy: making explicit encodings would make it more brittle indeed

Ed: I think a Best Practice by its nature is largely informative
... it could have more normative elements, those parts typically come from elsewhere
... there should not be anything unique or new

Jeremy: makes sense
... talking with Chris Little earlier who sent his regrets, his feeling was having it more normative would increase it being referenced in OGC and other specs

Clemens: I don't really see the benefit of that
... I am quite happy with background and guiding material. a web API will normatively reference HTTP
... normative reference means you need to read those references in implementing spec
... making it more standard like is a bit of a misuse

<Jtandy> \q?

Bill: I agree with Clemens and Ed. Best Practices don't speak to strict machine interoperability

Byron: I think there is a danger in mixing document types that don't necessarily strengthen the document
... guidance used in recent OGC project split documents into four different types or normative, reference and discussion materials
... feeling was mixing the types makes result less strong

Jeremy: what I'm hearing is people are in favor of keeping it informative

Proposal: SDW Best Practices remains informative not normative

<ClemensPortele> +1

<billroberts> +1

<eparsons> +1

<RobSmith> +1

<brinkwoman> +1

<Jtandy> +1

RESOLUTION: SDW Best Practices remains informative not normative

<jvanulde> +1

Jeremy: regarding the charter, we had a number of bullet points on our scope
... we went through them earlier and merging them and can provide insight on our thinking for feedback

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

[Linda reviews scope section]

<percivall> In Charter change link for OGC Tech Trends to https://www.ogc.org/OGCTechTrends

<RobSmith> Do we still have time for Testbed 17 discussion today?

<RobSmith> Ok. Thanks

<Jtandy> ted ... still aiming for the hour meeting ... Rob, how loving do you need?//ted ... still aiming for the hour meeting ... Rob, how loving do you need?

Linda: we are merging items logically

Jeremy: we can send proposed changes as a pull request and sounds like we are going in the right direction

OGC Testbed 17

[Rob shares screen, presents slides]

Rob: I want to briefly talk about testbeds 16 and 17
... currently involved in 16, kicked off in April and contributing WebVMT there
... there was a recent call for 17 and wanted to get ideas from this group
... extracting timed data packets for moving objects took quite a bit of work
... next steps are to parse metadata content for webvmt and using it for moving features
... I have a few ideas including a search engine demonstrator
... video search by location, by metadata (eg accident). various security, privacy and accessibility concerns arise
... working to support additional video and metadata formats

(body, drone, dash cams)

Rob: drones often use proprietary formats
... identify key use cases, three cited here (police evidence, crisis reporting, area monitoring)
... what I am interested in doing is find sponsors with mutual interests to expand or create new use cases that align with their aims
... suggestions welcome

Jeremy: an interesting use case came up in testbed 16 around underground drilling

Clara: yes, we're doing underground assets register
... I think John is involved as well

Jeremy: encourage discussion offline
... any quick reactions, otherwise follow up with Rob directly

Meeting Time

Linda: there was a request to be more friendly to US West Coast and suggestion for 5am GMT

<brinkwoman> Linda: discusses the meeting time.

<brinkwoman> bill: 5am UTC is 6am for UK participants; the current meeting time is 6am for US west coast. So we would just be trading

<brinkwoman> ed: difficult to accomodate europe, us and asia; maybe alternate

<brinkwoman> jeremy: let's move this discussion back to the mailing list

- DRAFT -

SV_MEETING_TITLE

23 Jul 2020

Attendees

Contents

Ethics/Responsible Use

Best Practices review update

Charter update

OGC Testbed 17

Meeting Time

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output