GeoSPARQL Standards Working Group Meeting Minutes

Meeting Details

Meeting Date: 11/08/2021

Meeting Time: 2030 UTC

Meeting Location: GoToMeeting

Attendees

Attendee Moniker
Timo Homburg TH
Matt Perry MP
Frans Knibbe FK
Nicholas Car NC
Mathias Bonduel MB

Note Takers

  • JA

Action Items From Last Meetings

| Done? | Item | Responsible | Due Date | | —- | —- | —- | — |

Discussion Items

Time Item Who Notes
2036 Intro JA Call for Patents
  • None known
Roll Call
  • Attendees recorded in minutes
  • Attendees confirmed vocally
2044 Run through of Pull Requests JA
  • NC
    • dcterms:isPartOf flipped to rdfs:member [#188](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/pull/188)
      Small PR to change dcterms:isPartOf to rdfs:member
    • AusPIX removed from normative standing [#190](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/pull/190)
    • SpatialMeasure props to use SpatialObject not Feature for domain [#184](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/pull/184)
      • Domain of SpatialMeasure properties to be SpatialObject
    • Internal IRIs [#186](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/pull/186)
      • Convert IRIs in the spec to point to relevant sections of the spec document rather than the ontology
      • The first hyperlink for the IRI (in the definition) still points to the ontology
      • TH: Ok with link to the document, but we should keep the namespace reference in the link text for the IRI link
      • NC: Flow of the text is better without the namespace
      • NC: Will add back namespace for requirement text and leave namespace off of other references in text.
      • NC: Will put PR back into draft until done making some changes.
    • Relation of CQL to GeoSPARQL [#68](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/pull/68)
      • TH: Ready for review. Can include in 1.1 or 1.2.
      • NC: Ok to merge.
    • Terms & Defs vocab [#165](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/pull/165)
      • NC: Do we have enough terms for the glossary yet?
      • FK: If we start with a core list, we can always add more later.
      • NC: I thought we had some definitions written down somewhere.
      • FK: I can look at that list and get it into shape.
      • NC: I can find a few core Sem Web definitions to add too.
      • FK: We can also check the normative references in Section 3
      • NC and FK to work on this issue.
    • adding a bunch of shapes [#173](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/pull/173)
      • SHACL Shapes
      • NC: Issue of regex-based shapes that look into geometry literals. Current GeoSPARQL spec doesn’t really deal with content of geometry literals - just refers to those geometry serialization specs.
      • MB: Current thinking is just to make sure asWKT doesn’t point to geoJSON literal, for example.
      • Could be expensive for large geometry literals.
      • NC to take a closer look at the regex issue.
    • [#177](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/177)
      • 1 serialization per geometry vs. multiple serializations per geometry
      • Consensus to make multiple serializations a warning instead of a violation
      • 2 serializations of the same type (e.g., 2 asWKT properties pointing to different literals) should be a violation
      • MB to handle issue 177 updates.
  • NC: if we close these remaining PRs we can vote within the GeoSPARQL SWG to move it forward to the OGC.
  • NC: I can fix typos as I see them instead of creating new PRs.
2119 Other major issues? NC
  • FK: rename Spatial Measure [#103](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/103)
    • FK to put in a PR so that we can evaluate proposed change.
  • MB: availability of vocabulary in JSON-LD
    • NC: OGC NA will take care of this
  • MB: what about publishing a JSON-LD context
    • NC: Yes. This is sensible to do, and OGC NA does not do it.
    • MB to create an issue for this.
  • FK: Issue 60 missing license [#60](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/60)
    • NC: We will need to create a license in ORDL ourselves in the OGC namespace.
2129 Pull Request 136 JA PR #136 Update geo.ttl: redefine ontology terms for DGGS
  • FK: Is it valid to cast a DGGS object to a Geometry?
  • NC: We are using DGGS literals the same way as geometry literals.
  • FK: proposal is to define DGGS object as a subclass of SpatialObject
  • NC: consequence is that topological functions for example need broader input types to handle this definition of DGGS object
  • NC: we need to explore this further.
  • FK: we can end up with some semantic contradictions if we define DGGS object as a Geometry
  • NC: we need to add DGGS as a separate conformance class if it’s not already. NC to put an issue in.
2147 Any other issues? NC None
2148     MEETING ENDS

Action Items

| # | Item | Responsible | Due Date | | —- | —- | —- | —- |