Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 18 November 2015

<KJanowicz> I have not used zakim for a while but I can try

i volunteer

<frans> A deed of true altruism grants happiness for at least a day

<eparsons> scribe ahaller2

<kerry> scribe: armin haller

eparsons: minutes from last week

<eparsons> Topic : Approve last week's minutes

<eparsons> http://www.w3.org/2015/11/11-sdw-minutes.html

<kerry> scribeNick: ahaller2

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1

<eparsons> +1

<Linda> +1

<billroberts> +1

<frans> +1

<kerry> +1

<ChrisLittle> +1

<eparsons> Resolution : Approve last week's minutes

<KJanowicz> +1

<joshlieberman> +1

<LarsG> 0 (wasn't there...)

<eparsons> Topic : Patent Call

eparsons: patent call

<eparsons> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

UCR issue 16

frans: open ucr issues to be resolved. issue 16 is about valid time. original thought that it was a requirement for OWL time, but OWL time is not about how time is used.

<KJanowicz> (but spatial is almost always spatio-temporal)

<Zakim> kerry, you wanted to speak on ssn at end of this ucr discussion

<frans> "Ensure alignment with existing methods for expressing the time in which data are valid (e.g. http://purl.org/dc/terms/valid)."

frans: similar to provenance issue. Problems related to valid time, but not a truly spatial problem. Solution could be to rephrase the requirement to above

<SimonCox> Apologies for late arrival - connectivity problems

frans: any objections to the proposal to rewrite?

<joshlieberman> If others do not provide appropriate vocabulary for valid time predicates pertaining to features, does this group step in?

kerry: closely related to the OWL time deliverable.
... requirement commonly used in sensor network use cases
... vocabulary for a valid time is in scope for our work

<SimonCox> Concern is opening Pandora's box. Start with one predicate, how many more do we tackle?

<frans> PROPOSAL: rephrase the valid time requirement to "Ensure alignment with existing methods for expressing the time in which data are valid (e.g. http://purl.org/dc/terms/valid)." and keep it as a requirement for OWL Time only.

<joshlieberman> "Valid" predicates also need to accommodate OWLtime as range.

<SimonCox> And

<SimonCox> "valid for what?"

<joshlieberman> Predicates expressing valid time of a subject

<KJanowicz> +1

ChrisLittle: siding with kerry. It should be in scope. In the context of Mobile things, time recording is important.

<SimonCox> (I'm pushing back to ensure clarity in requirements)

eparsons: Are you happy with frans rephrasing?

ChrisLittle: Yes

kerry: I am unhappy with this, because if we say it is out of scope here, we may have problem to put it in for OWL time.

<joshlieberman> +1 to Lars

<SimonCox> +1 to Larsg

<AndreaPerego> +1 to BP

LarsG: I would rather say it is part of Best Practises

<ChrisLittle> +1 to lars

<KJanowicz> IMHO, valid time is often important to scope spatial phenomena and thus in scope

<ChrisLittle> s/practises/practices/

+1 for being in scope for OWL time

<kerry> I think it should be considered as part of the owl-time work package -- while the solution may be delivered thru BP. So this is fine for me

SimonCox: OWL time at the moment is very clean. Nothing in OWL time that relates description of time to something else.
... are we opening pandoras box if we introduced a valid time predicate
... in the OGC we ended up with three time predicates as first class citizens in the work

<KJanowicz> Agreed, but data usage has changed and time is really key for space now

<SimonCox> @Jano - the issue is whether a 'valid time' predicate should be part of OWL-Time - which other wise is only concerned with the description of time geometry/topology and not the way it is coonnected to things.

KJanowicz: more important to temporal scope boundaries. For example, Crimea, when did the border change, or not

<SimonCox> Valid time is certainly of interest to the BP

<ChrisLittle> +1 to Simon's concern over n predicates

<SimonCox> @ahaller2 (three time predicates *on Observations* in OGC)

<KJanowicz> @SimonCox: I understand and probably you are right that it should not go into owl-time

frans: strongly oppose that, we would open pandoras box to include it

<KJanowicz> I think it is a spatial problem. In most cases whenever we say space we mean spacetime

<SimonCox> +1 KJanowicz Valid time is a general problem, but with a clear 'geometric' behaviour.

http://www.wsmo.org/2004/d3/d3.3/v0.1/#s312

<SimonCox> @ahaller2 +1 to modularization, to protect OWL-Time from specific predicates.

ahaller2: valid time is important, but we may need to modularize the ontology and put such predicates in another ontology.
... see the complex time ontology in the wsmo time

ChrisLittle: it is not in scope for the SDW working group. We probably find no one to champion it.

joshlieberman: often we think that spatial data can be just data, but there is a commitment to a features in the real world and they change. Number of extremely complicated ways to do that. For me, a classic case for BP.

<KJanowicz> @ChrisLittle: I see your point but viewing space without time is really getting more and more uncommon. Think about administrative borders, trajectories, modern mereotopology, and so forth.

kerry: mechanism is not clear, but it is an example of an issue that we will go over again and again. It will be important in this working group, in SSN, in Coverage. The question is where do we deal with it?
... OWL Time is the right work package for it.
... tend to leave this question open for a bit longer

eparsons: are you ok with frans' proposal to rewrite

kerry: yes, but leave it for later

<LarsG> PROPOSAL: rephrase the valid time requirement to "Ensure alignment with existing methods for expressing the time in which data are valid (e.g. http://purl.org/dc/terms/valid)." and keep it as a requirement for OWL Time WP

LarsG: proposes a rephrase

frans: work packages are not defined yet, are we distinguishing them from deliverables :-)

eparsons: we need to record the requirement not how it is met, yet

<SimonCox> (Maybe second deliverable re Time could be a method for registering predicates?)

eparsons: are you ok with LarsG's proposal?

frans: yes, but we talked about work packages suddenly

<kerry> nb: where it is delivered is NOT in the Requirment under lars proposal -- just where the issue goes!

frans: editors/group will have an enormous amount of liberty in interpreting requirements anyway

+1 LarsG rephrase

frans: it is to make editors aware of requirements

<KJanowicz> My feeling is that if we exclude this too early, we will have to revisit it later on

<kerry> +q

<ChrisLittle> +1 no URI therefore does not matter! ;)

kerry: it is a clear requirement, but we are too careful about the phrasing at the moment.
... at the end, if we address the requirement later, it may go back into the UCR

<joshlieberman> Time "usage" Req. 26 - BP, Req. 22 - OWLtime, Req. 24 - SSN, so it occurs all over.

kerry: larsG's proposal does not prescribe where it goes to

<LarsG> PROPOSAL: rephrase the valid time requirement to "Ensure alignment with existing methods for expressing the time in which data are valid (e.g. http://purl.org/dc/terms/valid)." and keep it as a requirement for OWL Time WP

<kerry> +1

+1

<billroberts> +1

<Linda> +1

<frans> +1

<KJanowicz> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<MattPerry> +1

<joshlieberman> +1 to getting on...

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1

<ChrisLittle> 0

<SimonCox> +1 is valid requirement

<DanhLePhuoc> +1

<eparsons> Resolved : rephrase the valid time requirement to "Ensure alignment with existing methods for expressing the time in which data are valid (e.g. http://purl.org/dc/terms/valid)." and keep it as a requirement for OWL Time WP

<frans> I will try to add a note to give the extra context

<Zakim> BartvanLeeuwen, you wanted to talk about Action-97 at end of UCR discussion

eparsons: let's move on

<Zakim> kerry, you wanted to talk on action-21

kerry: did some work on ACTION 21
... looked at the old SSN use cases
... we may need to revisit them if there is something there which we missed

<eparsons> Topic : BP Progress Follow Up

<frans> I will look at the results of action-21 within the next couple of days.

Linda: commit the group to some more actions, get feedback
... ACTION 94
... make links within a dataset discoverable

<Linda> discoverable

<Linda> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/97

BartvanLeeuwen: I was previously talking about a different issue, ACTION 97
... i wanted to show a demo
... probably by the end of the month

Linda: ISSUE 96 on billroberts

<BartvanLeeuwen> I was talking with about ACTION-85, which first has a UCR its connected to the product

billroberts: related to section 7.2 in best practise
... will work on it this weekend

Linda: ACTION 97 and 98, but the authors are not on the call

<billroberts> so name of action 96 is a duplicate with action 94, but I think action 96 was intended to related to the line of BP section 7.2 that says "it's useful to have hyperlinks to things like Geonames, wikipedia, OSM etc (see list on the mailiing list, keyword: stamp collecting)"

Linda: engage the group with new task: 1) compile list of common formats in use in spatial data, 2) compile a list of geospatial vocabularies in RDF
... any volunteers?

<frans> I found out it is not possible to define unassigned actions

eparsons: for 1) geometries or more?

<billroberts> I'll volunteer for (2) compile list of geospatial vocabs

<KJanowicz> Does "compile a list of geospatial vocabularies in RDF" mean a list of vocabularies/ontologies on spatial data for RDF/Linked data applications?

<frans> Yes, HTML could be a format for spatial data

<KJanowicz> I would volunteer for 2

eparsons: I volunteer for 1)

<billroberts> happy to collaborate with KJanowicz on item 2 - I suppose action should be assigned to one of us but we can agree to coordinate

<KJanowicz> @billroberts sounds good to me

<eparsons> ACTION: KJanowicz & billroberts to create list of Spatial RDF vocabs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Error finding 'KJanowicz'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.

<Linda> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/

<scribe> ACTION: eparsons to Compile a list of common formats in use in spatial data [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-100 - Compile a list of common formats in use in spatial data [on Ed Parsons - due 2015-11-25].

<scribe> ACTION: billroberts and KJanowicz to compile a list of geospatial vocabularies in RDF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Error finding 'billroberts'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.

<scribe> ACTION: KJanowicz to compile a list of geospatial vocabularies in RDF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Error finding 'KJanowicz'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.

<scribe> ACTION: billroberts to compile a list of geospatial vocabularies in RDF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-101 - Compile a list of geospatial vocabularies in rdf [on Bill Roberts - due 2015-11-25].

<kerry> action; linda to create an email thread around introduction to best practice

<KJanowicz> ahaller2: you may have to use full names

<kerry> ACTION: linda to create an email thread around introduction to best practice [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-102 - Create an email thread around introduction to best practice [on Linda van den Brink - due 2015-11-25].

Linda: face to face meeting next week

<joshlieberman> There will also be a briefing and discussion on SDWWG at the Sydney TC...

Linda: Friday 26th of November, so it would be good if all actions are actioned by them and put in the document

<KJanowicz> ahaller2 can you add me to action 101

<KJanowicz> yes, I am following their work closely

frans: in the Semantics conference in Vienna I presented the work in this group
... and GeoKnow was there

<joshlieberman> OGC TC Geosemantics session will be 30 November, 15:45 AEST. Accessible by GoToMeeting.

<KJanowicz> to jens lehmann

eparsons: warm up the editors that the SSN deliverables is starting in the next week
... we need to think about the F2F meeting in the new year

<kerry> +q

<scribe> ACTION: KJanowicz to compile a list of geospatial vocabularies in RDF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> Error finding 'KJanowicz'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/users>.

<Zakim> BartvanLeeuwen, you wanted to ask about GeoKnow liason regarding BP ( again at the end of BP discussion )

kerry: we planned to start working on Time, but the editors could not prepare yet for it
... four editors, kerry, ahalller2, KJanowicz and Danh Le Puoc

s/puoc/phuoc

<KJanowicz> the editors are for SSN

<AndreaPerego> Thanks and bye.

<KJanowicz> bye bye

<billroberts> thanks, bye

<joshlieberman> bye

eparsons: that finishes the meeting

<ChrisLittl> bye

<LarsG> thanks, bye

<frans> thanks & bye

bye

<eparsons> thanks ahaller2 scribe to the satrs

<scribe> ACTION: Krzysztof Janowicz to compile a list of geospatial vocabularies in RDF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-sdw-minutes.html#action08]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-103 - Janowicz to compile a list of geospatial vocabularies in rdf [on Krzysztof Janowicz - due 2015-11-25].