Points of Interest Working Group Teleconference -- 17 Nov 2010

<trackbot> Date: 17 November 2010

<ajbraun> We have three open actions to discuss when the call starts

<ajbraun> Matt - Follow-up on Korean contacts - Not sure of the status

<matt> ACTION-7?

<trackbot> ACTION-7 -- Matt Womer to follow-up on Korean contacts -- due 2010-11-03 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/7

<ajbraun> ACTION-11?

<trackbot> ACTION-11 -- Matt Womer to make the terminology page look nicer -- due 2010-11-03 -- CLOSED

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/11

<matt> Scribe: gagale

<ajbraun> Action-13?

<trackbot> ACTION-13 -- Mike Liebhold to put out a definition of a 'thing' to the mailing list. -- due 2010-11-17 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/13

<ajbraun> action-14?

<trackbot> ACTION-14 -- Jacques Lemordant to collect triples on the mailing list -- due 2010-11-17 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/14

<jacques> ++jacques

<cperey> hello!

regrets - Marco, Luca, Jens

Scribing - Gary (let off for a while now)

minutes objections/corrections - none voiced

action items

<matt> [[Regarding ACTION-7, the people Jonathan introduced would be IEs, so I'll have to talk to Andy]]

<matt> ACTION-13?

<trackbot> ACTION-13 -- Mike Liebhold to put out a definition of a 'thing' to the mailing list. -- due 2010-11-17 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/13

<matt> close ACTION-13

<trackbot> ACTION-13 Put out a definition of a 'thing' to the mailing list. closed

<Ronald> sorry, my skype crashed.... working on it

<matt> ACTION-14?

<trackbot> ACTION-14 -- Jacques Lemordant to collect triples on the mailing list -- due 2010-11-17 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/14

<jacques> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Data_Model#Triples_in_a_compact_XML_format

<Alex_> +1 not an action item, but an issue

+1 to saying names first -- otherwise my scribing attempts will be ... challenging

<matt> [[Maybe this should be an ongoing issue rather than an open action item?]]

andy: convert action 14 to an "issue" (suggested by matt)

matt: issues are longer term than actions

<Ronald> I can hear matt fine

<Alex_> can we have an action item to get "something" on the wiki

matt: issues generally end up as actions; issue == resolve data format ... action == actions to resolve the problem described in the issue (at a high level)

<Alex_> +q

<matt> ACTION-14?

<trackbot> ACTION-14 -- Jacques Lemordant to collect triples on the mailing list -- due 2010-11-17 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/14

<Alex_> -q

alex: original action item was to put something on the wiki ... that's been done

<Alex_> +q

<Alex_> -q

matt: initial action is done. might need to make "an issue" of it

<Alex_> +q

agenda creation

<danbri> thx

andy: no feedback on the agenda
... concerned that the agenda isn't reflecting needs of the members of the WG

<matt> Agenda feedback wiki page

andy: face to face items needed

<matt> Face to Face agenda

POI use cases

andy: "create vs. compute: use cases

dan: don't fully get the distinction between create vs. compute in use case

<Alex_> +q

<matt> Create vs Compute thread

<cperey> two or more parties interacting in the real world

<cperey> = play

alex: general idea was to come up with distinction ... between use case

<cperey> people adding content to the world (objects and places) = create

<Alex_> -q

<jacques> +q

<cperey> a cultural heritage guide with AR using semantic Web

jacques: mobile guide (using semantic search) would be the create use case?

<cperey> which kind of use case?

<Alex_> +q

<cperey> I would see that as falling in the "guide" use case

<cperey> it is a definition of what the USER experience

<danbri> ok so the use cases emphasise that the poi standards will represent data that comes from very different sources; created socially on mobile UI vs coming in from other systems?

alex: given that are already POIs ... how are we going to retrieve them

<cperey> building POIs dynamically?

<cperey> from data that is available from multiple sources (e.g. linked data)

jacques: it's not only retrieving it's also the act of building (POIs) ...

<cperey> wouldn't cultural heritage be fixed, known?

<matt> gagale: This is muddled. We've got lots of different terms and things flying around.

<matt> +1 to being lost

gary: this is horribly confused

christine: guide == something that guides or leads someone in an activity
... it's not passive, but it's not creating

<danbri> (the noise was me sorry, someone sent me a link that autoplayed)

christine: create == user generates content for a POI ... inputting them into (a database)
... play == two or more users interacting with each other in the real world

<ajbraun> +q

christine: jacque's question was where is "compute" in all of that

<Alex_> http://www.perey.com/ARStandardsMeetingOutputs.html

<cperey> http://www.perey.com/ARStandardsMeetingOutputs.html

christine: there's a PDF on that web page

matt: still a bit confused ... how are these use cases to be used ... support all or pick one? how will the use cases influence what we do in the WG?

name first please!

<Alex_> +1 reasonable question

thanks!

<matt> +1 to gary's scribing!

<Alex_> +1 to Andy's explanation

andy: data formats need to support a set of use cases, rather than be a data format solely ... we need to build test suites, but not necessarily building those services, we've already discussed this on the last call

<jacques> +1 for a test suite

<matt> [[we're definitely NOT building services within the WG]]

<ajbraun> +1 to well defined

christine: we need to design a data format that works for a well defined (closed isn't the right word) set of use cases

<cperey> http://www.perey.com/ARStandards/Three_Use_Cases.pdf

dan: is anyone disagreeing with that?

<Ronald> +1 to using the use cases as a test suite

silence denotes assent

<jacques> use cases are not enough specific to be used as a test suite

christine: use cases test the "hypothesis" of the data format

<Zakim> matt, you wanted to ask how close we feel we are to having complete use cases?

<matt> Use Cases

raj: dangers of use cases is that it can engender circular discussions, we need a reality check on use cases

+1 to raj on that

<cperey> reality check on use cases: company has product, or you commit to implement in software during the course of work

<Ronald> +1

matt: how many use cases do we need?

<jacques> +1 to reality check

gary: given that we have a small set of use cases, why not just use them

<cperey> +1 to run with what we have and check back to see if they are doing the job at a later point in time

andy: issue (or action) to review the use cases based on what's discussed today

<Alex_> I can do this

<cperey> can Alex Hill "translate" the three AR use cases we defined in Seoul?

<cperey> into a consistent format like the others

<danbri> danbri yeah

<danbri> action me, but make it detailed please :)

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - me,

<cperey> I think that Alex is signed up as well?

<Alex_> :)

<ajbraun> I volunteer for action as well exept was muted

<matt> ACTION:danbri to review use cases based on today's discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/17-poiwg-minutes.html#action01]

<Alex_> that doesn't count andy

<matt> ACTION: ajbraun to review use cases based on today's discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/17-poiwg-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-15 - Review use cases based on today's discussion [on Andrew Braun - due 2010-11-24].

<cperey> should CREATE be added to the use cases?

<cperey> machine driven=compute , human/user driven=create

<cperey> sorry, above

andy: difference is create is user driven and compute is computer driven. is that an artificial distinction

<cperey> the question is should COMPUTE be added to the use case

Ronald: it shouldn't matter, create/compute/person/computer

<cperey> that was Ronald

<ajbraun> I agree that compute and create are same use case

I'd argue semantics on this one

<jacques> perhaps not at the data level format

<cperey> but they may have different time dependencies

<JonathanJ> +1: compute and create same use case

<Alex_> -1 compute and create same use case

<matt> gagale: Maybe we're arguing semantics here. There may be a lot of overlap in these, we might want to conflate them into a single one and save a weeks work.

<jacques> -1

<cperey> then redefine create so that it is not LIMITED to the human creating?

<cperey> create with human has to give the user feedback, create with computing data does not require feedback

<Alex_> our thoughts on CREATE were "user generated content"

<danbri> yup matt, ideally the data format can handle data from many different sources (social/mobile, gis, etc); we're not making an API or a software package are we?

<Alex_> the rest is GUIDE

<cperey> Gary speaking?

<cperey> :-)

<matt> yes, danbri, that's what I'm thinking too. We're the data format, rather than the API or software...

<Alex_> +1 for F2F and for continued mailing list

<ajbraun> +2

Hauled over the coals by Christine for not saying my name :-)

<cperey> cold coals ...

<Alex_> +1 that this is a side issue and should be hashed out over mailing list

<ajbraun> whiteboards are great inventions

<Alex_> +1 agreed on corridor talk over agenda

<matt> gagale: It might be something we can hash out quickly f2f

<ajbraun> +1 on the format

<cperey> I think last week we agreed that the first order of business was definition of POI and things, etc

<Alex_> +1 on the format

matt: we have to lot to do ... don't want to get bogged down

<cperey> nope

<Alex_> +1 including "thing" is a higher priority

<JonathanJ> +1

+1 to Christine there

<ajbraun> +1

<Ronald> +1

<cperey> +1 that "thing" definition is to higher priority

andy: recap ... compute vs. create ... 1) take it to the mailing list 2) quick topic at the f2f 3) don't get bogged down by use cases

discuss "thing" (not on the agenda)

<cperey> can someone who is good with archives find the thread?

<ajbraun> A ' thing is a physical object with no fixed location that may have a POI digital information attached that cannot be automatically detected by geopositioning sensors. The POI,therefore will only be detectable by a default visual ( or acoustic?) search, invoked by a client.

<matt> Thing thread

<cperey> thanks!

<cperey> the important aspect is that it is not stationary

<cperey> +1

alex: it doesn't matter how a "thing" is detected ... but it's not fixed or stationary

<ajbraun> Agree with the detection model is not important

<ajbraun> +q

<cperey> and it has a location in space but that location CHANGES

http://www.vicchi.org/2010/11/16/location-vs-place-vs-poi/

<cperey> the location is absolute and relative, it is CHANGING in time, it is a dynamic location

<jacques> so we should have some information about the tracking of the thing in the data format

<JonathanJ> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poiwg/2010Nov/0050.html

<danbri> gagale, 'things' that aren't often treated well: mobile spaces like trains, boats, ... but also high granularity 'things' like a specific desk, in an office, ...etc

<Alex_> +1 agreed it needs some additional descriptors

<ajbraun> -q

alex: agree with idea (from gary) that "things" aren't fundamentally different, just need additional descriptors

<Alex_> +1 this helps us analyze the existing models

<ajbraun> thinks all POIs are things just that some have a easy sensor data access which is the gps sensor

<cperey> the thing's location is absolute and relative, it is CHANGING in time, it is a dynamic location (temporally "labile")

<Alex_> +1 no temporality and no dynamics means it is staic or permanent

<cperey> +q

<Alex_> +q

<ajbraun> gary wants to make the default use case based on the most available sensor data, which is today GPS

<danbri> some questions don't have sensible answers: "how many POIs are there in this building", for example. But "how many POI descriptions for things in this building do we have in this particular db" is sensible.

<danbri> gary, 'there are lots of people on 4square

<danbri> ...temporarily, mobile services, commuter hubs etc

<danbri> ... a need that isn't being fulfilled

<danbri> ..even though things like 4square have had phenomenal use, it's still relatively small % of internet use

<ajbraun> gagale: says that fixed location and time objects will cover 75% of the use cases today.

<danbri> ... important but sense of proportionality needed re these types of POI/place

<danbri> ...not ignore, but maybe we should be careful not to spend too much time on it

<danbri> ... vs more common cases

<matt> Can we maybe run this question against our use cases and see what falls out?

<cperey> Alex: inredible number of POIs that will pop in and out of existance, but if you query a database and you get no data back, then...

<Alex_> -q

<cperey> Alex: the fact that most POIs today are static time does not mean that they are in the future...

<cperey> I'm not sure I captured it correctly

<danbri> (people are POIs too)

<cperey> Alex: can you please check

<cperey> :=)

<cperey> :-)

<cperey> and my phone battery is almost dead

<cperey> but I can call back in

<Alex_> I've got other commitments

<cperey> next meeting will be Nov ??

<Ronald> I have to leave soon to

<Alex_> +1 this has been fruitful

<rsingh2> I have another call to go to

Probably the *BEST* call we've had yet

<matt> agreed gagale, that's why I thought about continuing it :)

<cperey> next week is Thanksgiving

andy: suggestion that there's no meeting next week due to US holidays

<cperey> ?

andy: next meeting will be December 1st

<Alex_> do we need an action item for establishing a F2F agenda?

<cperey> Alex review what I captured

<Alex_> ok

<cperey> speak in 14 days

<cperey> see you on the list

Officially giving up my scribe -- thanks everyone

<Ronald> will fill it in this week

<Ronald> thanks

<Alex_> Just because the data format with no modifiers means a static and permanent POI doesn't mean an endorsement that the majority of POI's are of this type ...

- DRAFT -

Points of Interest Working Group Teleconference

17 Nov 2010

Attendees

Contents

regrets - Marco, Luca, Jens

Scribing - Gary (let off for a while now)

minutes objections/corrections - none voiced

action items

agenda creation

POI use cases

discuss "thing" (not on the agenda)

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output