GeoSPARQL Standards Working Group Meeting Minutes
Meeting Details
Meeting Date: 22/09/2021
Meeting Time: 2030 UTC
Meeting Location: GoToMeeting
Attendees
Attendee |
Moniker |
Timo Homburg |
TH |
Joseph Abhayaratna |
JA |
Matthew Perry |
MP |
Frans Knibbe |
FK |
Nicholas Car |
NC |
Paul Cripps |
PC |
Robert Gibb |
RG |
Note Takers
Action Items From Last Meetings
| Done? | Item | Responsible | Due Date |
| —- | —- | —- | — |
Discussion Items
Time |
Item |
Who |
Notes |
2038 |
Intro |
JA |
Call for PatentsRoll Call- Attendees recorded in minutes
- Attendees confirmed vocally
|
2040 |
Actions for chairs |
JA |
- PC [#196](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/196).
- We need a home for development of peripheral Shape Constraints, Ontologies, etc., that do not form part of the standard.
- The popular suggestion is the Geosemantics DWG, and its Github repositories.
- We have a 30 minute timeslot at the next DWG meeting to discuss it.
- Meeting is Sep 15, 630-8am EDT, combined with the W3C Spatial Data on the Web Working Group
- [(**Action 1**)](#action_1)
|
2044 |
Run through of Pull Requests |
NC |
- [#173](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/pull/173)
- NC: REGEX shapes are controversial
- NC: Leading space can be an issue with current REGEX and probably other issues
- TH: Definitely need to handle whitespaces. Not sure if these should be in the standard - they certainly don’t validate WKT, GML, etc.
- NC: Not intended to validate - just a simple check. Checking literals falls out of scope of GeoSPARQL.
- MP: Also feels that it is out of scope of GeoSPARQL to validate literal contents.
- TH: checking that e.g., asWKT points to a wktLiteral would be an in-scope rule.
- NC: matching property with literal type is a valid check.
- NC: Plan is to add property and literal type check but remove literal content regex checks.
- [#205](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/pull/205)
- NC: Ready to go except for some spacing issue
- NC: Bibtex merged
- [#208](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/pull/208)
- SC: .cff is for citing whole repo
- NC: Let’s leave the .cff in there and update as needed
- TH: .cff is now natively supported by GitHub
- [#136](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/pull/136)
- FK: DGGS object view does not match geometry formal definition.
- NC: DGGS literals project something on Earth and can act as geometries as far as GeoSPARQL is concerned
- FK: Do functions work if the input is a mix of DGGS and WKT, for example.
- NC: Such case can work - we can convert back and forth between non-DGGS and DGGS.
- TH: Supporting a mix is a requirement for GeoSPARQL 1.1
- NC: Most geometry conversions are lossy. Many WKT geometries cannot be converted to GeoJSON for example because of CRS incompatibilities.
- NC: Will take a closer look at Frans’ comments.
|
2121 |
What’s left |
JA, NC |
- [#164](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/164) FK: Done
- [#60](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/60) JA: In progress
- [#149](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/149) JA: In progress
- [#165](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/pull/165) Issue removed from 1.1
- [#63](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/63) FK: Done
- [#120](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/120)
- FK: Only a new module for DGGS
- NC: Let’s move 120 to done and create another to check modularization
- [#204](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/204)
- FK: Why such a restrictive definition of hasLength? What about hasPerimeter?
- General agreement to add hasPerimeter and relax definition of hasLength.
- FK to take a shot at rewording hasLength definition
- [#181](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/181)
- TH: Found vocabulary from OGC-NA that can replace the one we came up with.
- TH: Can be done this week
- JA: Moving 181 to “to do”
- [#104](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/104)
- NC: This is a valid issue to resolve
- JA: Moving 104 to “to do”
- [#133](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/133)
- NC: I think we have addressed this because we have standardized the references
- NC to work on 133
- [#156](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/156) JA: removing this from 1.1 projec
- [#167](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/167) NC: has been dealt with, and we can close it.
- [#199](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/199)
- FK: there are 2 candidates
- FK: do the OGC versions match the ISO exactly?
- NC: I can check if they are the same and create a PR if they are
- [#198](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/198)
- FK: aggregate functions should have a set as input, which should be represented in the function signature.
- TH: earlier we came to the conclusion that we do not really need to change the signature but do not exactly remember the reasoning
- JA: will leave it in the backlog
- [#200](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/200) JA: Moving this one to “to do”
- [#201](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/201)
- All: type of distance should be based on input CRS
- Agreement that this should be clearer in the spec.
- FK to make a PR
- Ontology for CRS is a good topic for GeoSemantics DWG discussion.
- [#197](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/197)
- FK: Simple Features does not support Circle type
- TH: bigger issue is that we do not mandate what geometry types are returned from functions.
- JA: Moving this one to “to do” since bounding circle is new - we don’t want to create an issue.
- [#209](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/209) JA: Moved to “to do”
|
2200 |
Any other business? |
JA |
|
2200 |
|
|
MEETING ENDS |
Action Items
| # | Item | Responsible | Due Date |
| —- | —- | —- | —- |