<trackbot> Date: 05 January 2011

<Andy> Let's get started

<Andy> Lots of people on IRC not a lot on the call

<matt> Scribe: Alex

alex is scribing

F2F Review: Core POI

<Andy> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Core_Principles

Andy: let's start by going over the Face to Face results

<kseiler> ??? = Karl S

<jfdsmit> +q

<cperey> just muted myself

<cperey> could someone please paste in a URL?

Andy: referring to Core_Principles link, a POI must have a location primitive, name primitive, id primitive, a time primitive and must be extensible, etc.

<Andy> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Core_Principles

<cperey> thank you

Karl: if anyone wasn't at the meeting, do you have questions?

Jens: looking at the list I'm not sure I unserstand why so many elements are a "must have"

Andy: the "musts" doesn't necessarily mean each POI has to have one

<Andy> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Core/Draft

Andy: Sorry, Matt: the "musts" doesn't necessarily mean each POI has to have one

Karl: we decided to make these a must to provoke more discussion later

<cperey> +1 that it is a must

<Andy> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Core/Draft#time_primitive

<matt> Perhaps it's required with a default span of now

<cperey> could the default be when the POI was created?

<Andy> +q

Karl: as for time, we thought that it would be a significant part of the spec in the future, so we made it a must

Jens/Karl: agreed that the default time would be now

Jens: can the default of categorization be none?

Karl: we are doing a lot of LIDAR and we only know there is a business, so we are inclined to have an initial category for more things

Jens: are we going to have multiple categories?

Karl: we do need multiples, but for computer-to-computer, we will have to be crafty about how be encode things

Andy: there was a lot of agreement about not trying to recreate categorization schemes?

Raj: the location primitive seems wishy-washy - for machine-to-machine it seems abmiguous

Andy: the main point of unknown was for POI's that we don't currently have the location of
... and "relative" was for "the blue house 100m down the street" example

Karl: the thought was to have something we can hand around when we haven't resolved the location down to cartesian coordinates

<jfdsmit> +q

<cperey> who is speaking now?

<Andy> yes

<Andy> Karl

Raj: the relative and other non-cartesian locations don't seem to help mach-2-mach interoperability

<cperey> yes, please

<cperey> just say your name!

<kseiler> will do

Karl: we pass around addresses all the time at Navteq - for instance what Google resolves to Cartesian is not as accurate as we do

<cperey> there are people in the q?

<Andy> -q

Karl: the 3D model seem controversial

<Andy> +q

Raj: we have some interest from real estate persons wanting a wireframe of buildings or individual units inside one

Karl: when the topography changes then binding or model anchor is likely to be shifting - we need some way to resolve this

Jens: seems that we could do late binding on things like anchor

<cperey> agree with Alex on his point about the world getting more and more "complex" and high resolution

<cperey> thinking ahead +1

Andy: some of the 3D aspects were movitated by AR, right Alex?

<Ronald> +1

Alex:

<matt> ack jfdsmit, Andy

<Andy> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Core/Draft

Alex: yes there were motivated by AR for things like picking buildings, placing POI's relative to building structures (i.e. on that window, etc.)

<cperey> Karl?

Alex: but, we should also include them because simple 3D points and minimum bounding rectangle is probably not going to cut it in a future where there is singingicantly more fidelity in GIS modeling

<cperey> not prescribing a format at this point sounds like a good idea

Matt: We decided not to nail things down to XML or JSON at this point to make sure we keep the important points in mind
... But we will have to bind this at some point to specific example or it will be considered too theoretical

<Ronald> I agree

Jens: I can only agree

<jfdsmit> +1

<Andy> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/charter/#milestones

F2F Review: AR Landscape

Andy: that wraps up the POI format discussion - I don't see Jonathon here but he put some effort into an AR landscape document that he presented

<cperey> yes, that was me

Andy: I believe Alex and Ronald had offered/voluntered to help move this forward

<kseiler> andy you are breaking up on the line

<cperey> a draft out this month would be beneficial for discussion at the International AR Standards meeting Feb 17-19

<rsingh2> breaking up for me too

<cperey> the community would comment at the Feb meeting

Andy: the plan has been for a first draft in April, but there was some discussion about accelerating this timetable to get more public comment/iterative model

<cperey> the position papers deadline is Jan 17

<cperey> q

<cperey> I would like to have the floor?!

Andy: we also have the AR note and need someone to volunteer to help with that

<cperey> when ready

<Andy> christine?

I haven't heard Christine

AR Standards Workshop

Christine: would be nice to have these notes as a position paper for the International AR standards workshop

<kseiler> +q

Christine: I would encourage this accelerated timetable because this draft would provoke a lot of disscusion at the Ar standards workshop

<cperey> deep sigh

<jfdsmit> what needs to be done on the AR note? do we have a skeleton or abstract?

Karl: I would prefer a smaller more iterative process versus making a larger commitment because I don't want to disappoint the group by overcomitting

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

<cperey> http://www.perey.com/MobileARSummit/Position_Papers.html

Christine: There weren't a lot of position paper for the last meeting in October, but when combined with other discussion, these papers really helped motivate the discussion

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

Christine: these position papers don't have to be of exceptionally high quality (i.e. for peer review)

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

Christine: the purpose of the steering committee is not to cut out people but just ot make sure that those included are relevant

<cperey> Please make sure to include this "home page" in your minutes http://www.perey.com/ARStandardsMeetingFeb2011.html

Andy: If I can be there on the second day in Barcelona, I would be happy to present a paper on our POI progress
... Moving on to the announcements part of the agenda

<kseiler> q

<cperey> are there thoughts about having the April F2F in Europe?

<jfdsmit> christine: karl suggested berlin in atlanta

Call for Volunteers

Andy: those of you who want to help edit the working draft can contact me offline

Karl: can we get people to volunteer to flesh out an individual primitive?
... For instance I would volunteer to take a stab at location

<matt> +1 to no wiki edit wars!

Andy: perhaps we can do the "churning" or "thrashing" in the e-mail list instead of in the wiki?

<jfdsmit> +1

<Ronald> +1

<kseiler> sounds good to me - I'll take a stab at the "location" primative

Andy: any other announcements?

Raj: can we make these pages such as core principles more visible?

Andy: Matt is working on that now

<cperey> Amsterdam

Next Face to Face

Andy: there was talk about Amsterdam or Berlin as a location for the next F2F location

<cperey> Amsterdam in spring!

<kseiler> amsterdam works

<jfdsmit> just as rainy as Berlin...

<cperey> April 12-16 American what?

<rsingh2> http://www.aag.org/cs/annualmeeting

Raj: April 11-16th American Association of Geographers

<cperey> AMerican Association of Geographers

<kseiler> where is where 2.0?

<cperey> :-)

<cperey> San Francisco

<rsingh2> http://where2conf.com/where2011

Raj: and, Where 2.0 is in Sant Clara April 19-21

<cperey> yes...we need to get down to some dates

Andy: if your mention was to suggest a co-location, I think we really need to hit Europe

<cperey> I would say immediately following Where 2.0

<jfdsmit> +1 for a poll, IF everybody answers fast

<cperey> need to check when Easter

<Ronald> poll sounds good

Andy: Perhaps I will send out a poll to the mailing list to gather ideas about a F2F meeting?

<cperey> +1 poll

Andy: OK, I'll do that ASAP

<cperey> bye bye!

<kseiler> ok adios

:)

<Ronald> thanks all, bye

bye

bye