Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

<eparsons> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 16 December 2015

<Kerry> scribe:Kerry

<scribe> scribenick: Kerry

<eparsons> Topic : Approve last week's minutes

<eparsons> http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-sdw-minutes

<eparsons> Proposed : Approve last week's minutes

<Linda> +1

<jtandy> +1

<phila> +1

RESOLUTION: approve last weeks minutes

<LarsG> 0 (missed most of the call)

+1

<eparsons> Resolved : Approve last week's minutes

<eparsons> Topic : Patent Call

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

<eparsons> Topic : Best Practice - Progress to date

<phila> C Nortgate Parkinson's law I believe

jtandy: BP pub delayed last week
... still developing -- linda and payam have been busy last week
... up to bp 18 is looking good
... more for jtandy to do after that
... some respec errors

<phila> Editors' Draft of the BP doc

jtandy: on 6th jan will be spiffing [sic]

Linda: Payam and I have covered first half, looking pretty good to there, some styling to go

jtandy: some outstanding points
... BP 9

<jtandy> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#relative-position

jtandy: relative positioning/ linear referencing we picked this up along the way
... refers to topo network eg directions along a street from a reference point like a junction
... can be done in GML, is an edge case, not really common practice

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to say we need to talk to AR people about this

jtandy: want to know how important this BP is ---- or is it geofluff [sic]

<jtandy> "geo-fluff"

phila: AR people need this, eg Christine Perey, we should check with her

<jtandy> ACTION: jtandy to talk to Christine Perey about the need for relative positioning [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-128 - Talk to christine perey about the need for relative positioning [on Jeremy Tandy - due 2015-12-23].

ed: is this broader than just linear referencing -- common in engineering, but is it also a case of these other spatail relationships?

s.spatial/spatial/

<billroberts> sorry I'm late!

jtandy: yes, but looking for advice on this, e.g. ed's upstairs under the bed use case

<eparsons> ACTION: Ed to add more spatial relationship things [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-sdw-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-129 - Add more spatial relationship things [on Ed Parsons - due 2015-12-23].

jtandy: ed can you write some paragraphs for the proforma that would motivate this?

Ed: yes. might get a bit fuzzy but is important

jtandy: rachel also talked about chainage [sic] along a geospatial survey... relative positioning between the points
... Linda awaiting actions from andrea and Josh ACTION-126 and ACTION-127 re merging data formats
... but not present at meeting

Ed: missed last call -- one table or 2?

jtandy.... We liked the subjective stuff in Ed's table but also Clemens formal/factual style and we want that.

scribe: not yet pinned down how to fit this in, but we want to capture both in one place to start with... will come back later

ed: if you are really rushed you should skim through that for a lot of information

jtandy: still a bit ambiguouls how this will be presented
... BP 3 and BP5 are flagged as requiring extra content

<jtandy> BP-3 http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#lacking-ids

<phila> What DWBP says on that topic

<jtandy> BP-5 http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#ids-for-chuncks

jtandy: loads of identifiers in a CSV table... where is good practice for converting local identifiers to http uris? we need to find this.
... also BP 5 fragment identifiers
... (problem with typo in chunks discussed with jtandy, linda, phila)

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about possible navigation

<scribe> ACTION: Linda to change fragment identifier for chunks in BP doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-sdw-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-130 - Change fragment identifier for chunks in bp doc [on Linda van den Brink - due 2015-12-23].

jtandy: we don't know what to add in here -- we need more

phila: you are missing extra navigation on top of the list (DWBP maybe has too much)

<phila> http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-dwbp-20151217/#challenges

<phila> http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-dwbp-20151217/#bp-benefits

phila: DWBP uses SVG diagram to group them, also grouped by benefits (also generated), but respec duplicated the lists
... which or both of these is useful for SDW bp?

jtandy: agreed, but is is mandatory for fpwd?

phila: no

ed: agrees useful but ths should come later -- too hard now

jtandy: lets try -- phila agrees to do the scripting

ed: how many BPs do we have real BP examples to point to?

jtandy: http identifiers: nanaimo
... reuse -- anything that uses geonames
... identifiers -- from sdi used in a web environemnt -- this must exist

ed: before FPWD we need at least some of these filled in
... need to show that we stand behind waht we say
... want to give people homewoerk to find these things

jtandy: we had planned to wait for after FPWD

ed: how about doc actually stating this intention then -- if not actually doing it?

linda: in intor or scope there is a statement like this -- all being founded on real live practice -- could add intent to put examples in but every bp has an example section to show it is expected

ed: ok that sounds ok

jtandy: questions?

ed: hope the BP editors still get a holiday!

<jtandy> scribe: Jeremy Tandy

<jtandy> scribenick: jtandy

<eparsons> Topic : SSN - Tasks definition SSN Tasks

SSN and the definition of tasks

Kerry: we have 3 SSN editors on the call

<Kerry> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SSN_Tasks

Kerry: list of tasks is not necessarily final
... first on the list
... BTW: this is early warning of where we want people to help
... so first - modularisation of the SSN ontology
... Krystof (spelling?) is taking this forward; using a pattern based approach
... [missed no. 2]
... [other topics] need to determine the scope of SSN - base on requirements
... align SSN with PROV-O
... align with RDF Data Cube
... need to work out how SSN can work with satellite data
... will revisit the multilingual annotation
... look at the 'actuation' concerns - although handed off to WoT folks
... shall we develop targeted 'profiles' of SSN for different purposes
... not quite sure how to document that

phila: we don't have a standard that enables us to define profiles - but w3 does have a WG to define that
... there are things like SPIN and shape expression -
... the way we define a profile at the moment is to publish a PDF
... it's that there are several ways to publish the profile
... does anyone have any thoughts

Kerry: good point - slightly off scope, but maybe we could set the best practice for defining profiles in this group

<billroberts> is this what you mean by 'shape expression' phila? https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/

Kerry: PROV-O is a good example of documentation of an ontology - but this is a tremendous amount of work
... adding deeper 'OWL axiomisation' ... but not sure what that means
... could mean the removal of reliance on DULCE?
... more stuff that relates to modularisation
... this is a big list
... is there anything we've forgotten?

eparsons: big list - is this realistic?

Kerry: you could be right - we must do the documentation, but we're not starting from scratch
... the redesign [modularisation] is needed
... profiles are prob optional
... we might be able to miss out the tutorial
... aligning with PROV-O is harder - because we're not quite sure how to do this
... yes, there's a lot of stuff, but much of this has been done before and we can reuse

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask about SSN as a FPWD

Kerry: obviously it depends on how much work people put in :-)

phila: so you also have SSN ... I'm thinking about my next WG that I can't call 'licensing'
... there the FPWD will be ODRL, this is similar to SSN
... would a lot of cutting & pasting from the earlier work be sufficient?

Kerry: modularisation needs to be done
... that's numbers 1, 2 and 12 from the list that Kerry was referring to [ref?]

<eparsons> jtandy relationstionship between OGC activities and this - how is this manifested at the ontology level

jtandy: talking about the O&M ontology work from Simon Cox

<MrJohnSCirincione> Present John Cirincione Collateral Analytics

Kerry: this might be done in the modularisation / refactoring ... treat O&M as an upper ontology ... making the mapping explicit

DanhLePhuoc: several tasks on the list can be merged; e.g. numbers 1 & 2

<eparsons> hello john will give you introduction in moment..

DanhLePhuoc: also specifying best practices and the tutorial action

Kerry: agrees

eparsons: notes that MrJohnSCirincione has joined us

MrJohnSCirincione: introduces himself

eparsons: please talk to myself or kerry offline to get some more context - at the moment we're in the weeds of a topic [not too accessible for a new starter]

Kerry: there's also ClausStadler_

ClausStadler_: introduces himself and notes some technical difficulties in joining
... am from Leipzig University

eparsons: happy to brief you offline too

Kerry: right now we're focused on SSN, would welcome assistance on that

<MrJohnSCirincione> Ed and All, many thanks for the warm welcome, Sincerely John C.

Kerry: so - I'm looking for feedback on what the SSN deliverable looks like
... can you point to things that we should copy (e.g. other ontologies)
... what about user documentation
... are we talking about a family of documents
... I like PROV-O - but that's a lot of work.

<Kerry> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-overview/

eparsons: does anyone have any views?

jtandy: suggests a primer

<phila> Primer++

Kerry: so this is like a tutorial ... a bit like it

jtandy: primer is for bootstrapping people

Kerry: so we're talking about many things .., tutorial, primer, howto

phila: surely the primer is a howto?

eparsons: primer is not so much of a beginner - but someone who has more that a passing (academic) interest in the topic

BartvanLeeuwen: it's difficult to see how this fits with this group ...
... I'm interested in this because I'm creating a linked data fire engine which is covered in sensors
... but how does this fit with spatial data

eparsons: I see that ... sensors fit in 'space' so there's a spatial element

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to raise a point I remember Ralph making in DWBP

eparsons: but you're right that we need to make things coherent in [regards to the work of the _spatial_ data on the web group]

<Kerry> +q

phila: agrees - notes that in his other WG, it was odd that there was no cross referencing between the documents published within that group

jtandy: there will be cross referencing ... there are sections for dealing with sensor and observation data

Kerry: in our planning we put the BP stuff first ...
... [missing]
... we will need to pin down [the relationship between the deliverables] at some point in the future

eparsons: so in a future call we need to talk about the scope of the SSN work; the over arching scope
... the BP doc will touch on sensor data, but the SSN deliverable will be much more detailed
... we need an overarching scope to bind all the deliverables together [in terms of spatial data]

Kerry: agreed - sensor data _is_ spatial data

eparsons: BartvanLeeuwen can be our barometer of whether we've done this

BartvanLeeuwen: I can see this - but it still feels different

<Zakim> Linda, you wanted to ask people to record their attendance of the next f2f

<Linda> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Attending_F2F3

jtandy: refers to the Linking Geospatial Data conference in London, 2013 ... this is where the scope of the WG was defined

<phila> I hear Ed getting his light sabre ready

Linda: please can you all record if you're going to attend the next f2f near Amsterdam

eparsons: thanks for your efforts, goodnight & merry christmas

<LarsG> happy christmas all

<billroberts> thanks all - bye

Kerry: see you next year!

<eparsons> May the force me with you !!!

<eparsons> thanks scribes