GeoSPARQL Standards Working Group Meeting Minutes
Meeting Details
Meeting Date: 05/05/2021
Meeting Time: 2030 UTC
Meeting Location: GoToMeeting
Attendees
Attendee | Moniker |
---|---|
Joseph Abhayaratna | JA |
Timo Homburg | TH |
Frans Knibbe | FK |
Matthew Perry | MP |
Nicholas Car | NC |
Simon Cox | SC |
Note Takers
- JA
Action Items From Last Meetings
| Done? | Item | Responsible | Due Date | | —- | —- | —- | — |
Discussion Items
Time | Item | Who | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
2040 | Intro | JA | Call for Patents
|
2042 | Run through of open issues | All | Issue: Missing license #60<ul><li>Tasks created for Nick and Jo, in the ticket Issue: What is hasSpatialResolution range #98</li><li>Work on this ticket is Done, awaiting PR review #122 Issue: Include all functions already described in Simple Features for SQL #11 <ul><li>Assigned to JA to add to Annex C (make generic, and add table)</li><li>Work complete, awaiting PR review</li></ul>Issue: Additional GeoSPARQL requirements from Loc-I project #33 <ul><li> Work outlined in the ticket is done, but there is outstanding work added during the commentary of the ticket that needs to be captured in a new issue (DONE)</li><li> Let’s get approval from the requestor to close this issue (Simon Cox)</li></ul>Issue: Add a list of 1.1 New Features to the Revision history section #114 <ul><li>Work complete, awaiting PR review</li></ul> Issue: Fix figure annotations in 8.18.1. B.1 Example Data #90 <ul><li>Work complete, awaiting PR review</li></ul>Issue: Add examples of all New Features to Annex B #121 Issue: Update the CHANGELOG in the spec #95 <ul><li>Work complete, awaiting PR review</li></ul>Issue: RDF examples #122<ul><li> Discussed, particularly the inSRS property, and implications caused for DGGS</li><li>Resolution looks to be defining DGGS literals more specifically</li></ul> Issue: Add concepts for accuracies and tolerances and What is hasSpatialResolution range #98 <ul><li>Resolution/accuracy metrics issue has also come up in DCAT revision - see #1266 and #15 The DQV vocabulary is very flexible, but also rather abstract</li></ul>Issue: Which conventions to use for ontology annotation and metadata? #63 Closed completed issues |
2140 | MEETING ENDS |
Action Items
| # | Item | Responsible | Due Date | | —- | —- | —- | —- |