This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.

2013-02-06: Kick-off meeting

From Locations and Addresses Community Group
Jump to: navigation, search


Email with proposed agenda
  1. Roundtable presentations
  2. Scope of the LOCADD CG (and possible milestones / roadmap)
  3. Relationship with other initiatives (e.g., GeoSemWeb)
  4. Review of the survey & task assignment
  5. Working procedures (telecons, mailing list, wiki)
  6. Agreement on next steps & meetings


Present (9)
Andrea (Andrea Perego, JRC), Feroz (Feroz Farazi, University of Trento), Frans (Frans Knibbe, Geodan), Ghislain (Ghislain Atemezing, Institut Telecom), Makx (Makx Dekkers, independent), Michael (Michael Lutz, JRC), Phil (Phil Archer, W3C), Raj (Raj Singh, OGC), Stasinos (Stasinos Konstantopoulos, NCSR “Demokritos”)
Michael, Andrea


Roundtable presentations

Andrea: Joint Research Centre of the European Commission. Member of the team in charge of the technical coordination of the INSPIRE Directive. Co-chair of Core Location Vocabulary Task Force of the ISA programme.

Michael: Joint Research Centre of the European Commission. Technical and data modelling contact point for the INSPIRE data specifications. Co-chair of Core Location Vocabulary Task Force of the ISA programme.

Phil: Help community group from W3C side

Glad to have OGC on board to provide their experience

Raj: Try to follow as many geospatial efforts as possible and harmonise them

A lot of things to harmonise, many similar concepts in different specs

Feroz: Geospatial data and metadata, integration of Wordnet with metadata annotation

More emphasis recently on using pre-defined metadata tags. How to include new datasets?

Frans: Involved in EU projects using INSPIRE and OGC specs

Interest in Linked Data and how it can be used for geospatial information

Ghislain: Involved in French project on linked geospatial data.

Workshop at INSPIRE 2012 conference on linked data principles for geospatial information

Makx: Involved (with Phil) in work on SEMIC (ISA Action 1.1).

Also involved in INSPIRE in the past, and projects on public sector information, e.g. transport.

Also been involved in DC vocabulary, e.g. dc:box...

Stasinos: Involved in W3C working groups and activities for past 4 years, e.g. POWDER. Government LD group.

Interest in semantic stores and geo extensions of this.

Scope of the LOCADD CG

Scope as drafted in the survey
Discussion on LOCADD CG scope on the mailing list

Andrea: Main focus will be to investigate existing efforts to standardize vocabularies/encodings for providing a geospatial reference for resources, e.g. through coordinate geometries, addresses or geographical names

assess whether any use cases (in the context of the Semantic Web) would be served by harmonization and/or new standardization work

Many standards out there, lots of room for harmonisation

Also important to link geo-spatial infrastructures and data with other initiatives and infrastructures, e.g. for eGovernment

Different ways to represent spatial aspects → difficult to query across different data sets

Frans: Is this group limited to Linked Data or Sem Web? This would e.g. exclude KML, INSPIRE

Michael: No, focus on vocabularies for relationships and concepts for expressing location and addresses

There could then be different encodings

Phil: like to see how concepts/relationships could be encoded in RDF, but then values could still be encoded as XML literals

Ghislain: Are we going to define a new vocabulary? Or just mappings, recommendations?

Andrea: Not the main goal to define new vocabularies. One of the topics is to identify gaps where specific use cases cannot be supported by existing technologies.

Phil: Important to have addresses in scope

Important to inform other groups like the one working on An organization ontology (http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/)

Action: Keep a section on the wiki on related initiatives and projects

Relationship with other initiatives

Relevant thread

Michael: We had a conversation with Krzysztof Janowicz, co-chair of the GeoSemWeb CG about possible overlaps between the two CGs.

Scopes of the two CGs quite different. GeoSemWeb scope is broader, and the CG is meant to provide a discussion forum for issues concerning the “Geospatial Semantic Web” as a whole.

Agreement on establishing a stable relationship between the two CGs, sharing discussion items relevant to both or to only one of the two groups.

Review of the survey

Relevant email
Survey wiki page
Frans's comments

Andrea: Overview of ToC of survey

Each vocab to be described using a common template

Final comparison of features

Recommendations: what are the gaps? (related to specific use cases) Where are potentials for harmonisation and future standardisation?

Frans: use cases should be more prominent in the survey

Depends on how general the use cases will be and how many.

Need to define what we mean by use case.

If the scope is not limited to (narrow interpretation of) linked data, the number of standards/specs to be considered may be too large

Ghislain: Have one use case already: what should other standards/specs (e.g. organisation ontology) use to represent location/addresses.

Have a common use case page on the wiki that can be updated whenever we identify use cases

What are the plans in OGC to create structured vocab's based on concepts in OGC/ISO standards?

<Phil>: Trying hard not to feel superior looking at our W3C's royalty free licence :-)

<Raj>: OGC definitions service: http://urn.opengis.net/

Action: Provide pointers to OGC definitions service, ISO concept register, ISO TC211 terminology spreadsheet

Raj: This group could further restrict and constrain existing specs in order to make them more useful (for specific tasks)

<Raj>: @Phil, OGC's license is royalty free too!

Michael: Maybe look at actual use rather than theoretical use cases

Raj: Would be good to look at interoperability / processing chain use cases.

Frans: Only one UC that matters: getting geospatial information on the WWW

Raj: Need to be more precise.

What are your input data and what do you want to output?

Capabilities and questions in survey template could be considered as UCs that the different specs are tested against.

Feroz: Different geometry capabilities are important. Should be possible to represent at least points, lines and polygons

Working procedures

Frans: We could start making use of the discussion tab of the wiki

Agreement on next steps & meetings

Michael: Proposal is to have a call every two weeks

All: Agreed

Michael: We'll create a poll to decide the dates and the meeting time.

Frans: Thanks to the chairpeople!


Action #1: Keep a section on the wiki on related initiatives and projects

Action #2: Provide pointers to OGC definitions service, ISO concept register, ISO TC211 terminology spreadsheet