F2F Agenda

<cperey> +1 to use a poll for rescheduing

<Ronald> +1

<ahill2> +1

<cperey> I think that there is low participation and this is a concern to me

<cperey> maybe that's not the issue?

matt: I think we should focus on the Core draft for the majority of the time, say a day and a half on writing that, pounding through that. Then there are the other things: the AR draft, fixing the call times, planning the next f2f, how to get to FPWD, liaison statement review, how to adapt this, and do we want to work on a query mechanism?

ahill2: Let's not work on F2F and call participation at the f2f, those should be in a more public forum.

<cperey> +1 on what Alex just said

ahill2: Lack of participation is probably not about the call times.

karls: Bump it back to Tuesday or out to Thursday, it's a low cost experiment.

<cperey> there were 8 participants on Monday

-> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/45386/POI-F2F-2011-1/ F2F survey

<cperey> Carsten what company?

<cperey> could we have an introduction by Carsten

<cperey> please?

<ahill2> christine, UK Ordinace Survey is a Government initiative I belive?

<cperey> audio is muddy

Introducing Carsten

Carsten: I'm interested in standards around geographic information, data models, etc.
... How you standardize and link POIs is of great interest to us.

F2F Agenda

Karl: Could we get a recap of where we think we're at?

karls: We had a lot of work on location, IDs and some on categories, where are we at?

<cperey> we also had a session about provenance/quality topic

<cperey> +1 to AR has been set aside

<cperey> not just the AR note

matt: I think we have a lot of stuff that needs some connective tissue.
... We need to work on the AR side too.

ahill2: Regarding the AR, it's an ongoing theme. I think we'll be able to do the AR note at a later date. Obviously the prime mission here is to get out a working draft spec.

<karls> how about the ID issues, did we get to some decisions?

<karls> i missed those calls

ahill2: I also wanted to say the status of things, the stuff about linked data really is a big question mark for me: how do we integrate those thoughts with what we are doing, how do they influence us?

<cperey> there are a lot of other groups/initiatives who are working on this

ahill2: The recent document that Vinod sent out highlights my suspicion that we don't know what we are talking about. There are a lot of people talking about these things seriously and academically, I am concerned that we don't have enough information.
... It's a setup for irrelevance if we don't have enough information. I think it comes back to participation.

<cperey> which the core POI WG actors are not really monitoring/privy to

ahill2: Sometimes you have to disband and find another group.
... We do need more expert information.
... The expert last week was extremely helpful.

<cperey> I think it would be valuable to have Henning S

karls: I think that is real constructive advice. The discussion we're having is very broad, fingers in lots of directions. Maybe that's what we do, we think about expanding participation about how to reach out to, and a plan to poll and start pulling in experts on key topic areas, just to bring the whole effort up a notch.

<ahill2> thanks

karls: In terms of relevance.

<cperey> how can we get some large companies involved

<ahill2> +1

<ahill2> +q

<cperey> like Google?

matt: I think w3c is a good place for this as it's a good intersection of lots of technologies.

karls: Let's take this as a topic of study, look at the other fields involved, identify credible experts and have a constructive plan to pull them in.

matt: +1!

<Ronald> +1

<cperey> +q

<andy> +1

<andy> +q

ahill2: Part of me wonders if our stated mission doesn't align well with our constituency. A lot of our talk is around the commercial practicalities, but the academic and theoretical work is happening in a different area, more open source/semantic web, and then this other side of AR.

<cperey> +1 to what Alex is saying

ahill2: How do we get them involved if we're not already including them?

cperey: In the social web IG we had 30-35 presentations. Someone would be responsible for finding an expert, bringing them in and keep records.

<ahill2> +1

cperey: In the end when we were done with our report, we sent it to those who contributed for feedback.

<karls> +1

<Ronald> +1

cperey: I can write up a how-to guideline for this.
... We touched a great number of domains.
... It's a core responsibility perhaps not reflected in our charter.

andy: What was the outcome of the IG?

<ahill2> +1 to mapping out our constinuencies

cperey: We prepared a report, it's extremely methodical about the state of the social Web and what we feel are the trends/justifications for the standards

<ahill2> While your at it can you mention motivations of members?

<ahill2> or OpenStreetMaps

andy: How do we expect a POI standard if say, Google isn't part of the group, how do we make our standard be used if we don't have that buy-in?
... The Social IG might have had the same problem, with for example facebook.

<Zakim> matt, you wanted to say this method would be great for AR docs and some expert opinion on tech issues for the core, but we still need to write the Core draft

<karls> +q

<andy> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/how_chris_messina_got_a_job_at_google.php

<ahill2> -1

matt: I was thinking we may need to split a bit. The core doc needs to get done, and we do a lot of that on the call. We could have invited tech experts there, as well have another hour of AR experts to help inform the AR landscape.

karls: I think we need to push ahead on the draft, and use that to give context to the experts we want to bring in.

<cperey> I need to change phones. I'll call back in

ahill2: I agree with what Karl is saying. Trying to bridge the two, someone who can talk about computer vision, and the future of vision based tracking is valuable, as long as it's in the context of, say things that are locations or POIs that aren't described in the world via GPS or something.
... As long as it's in the context of fleshing out the draft.

karls: I'm hearing consensus that we want to bring in additional people and representation. I think the proposal is to use the first draft to help do that.

matt:I just worry about the amount of time we have per week

cperey: It's important to have a deadline. I don't want the deadline to be more important than the content, so that it is relevant and stays relevant.

<ahill2> +1 to striking a balance

<Ronald> +1

<cperey> maybe more people would come if there were experts

<cperey> and invest in the drafting of the draft

<karls> i just like to force a closure on an iteration so we push our needs and understanding of those needs forward, a draft will enable better communication

matt: I just think we need to strike a balance. We made a commitment, and if we slip it too much we could slip out of relevance too. We just have a limited amount of time per week.

<cperey> I took an action item

ahill2: The experts could also increase participation.

matt: I think this is a good f2f topic.

<cperey> +q

<cperey> I do

ahill2: Why isn't Google here?

cperey: I've had dialog with the Goggles project. They've been working far more than they talk about, at least on the AR side.
... The visual people don't spend a lot of time discussing with the geospatial people.
... Left hand/right hand problem.
... I'm going to have a talk about why Google should care about AR standards. If anyone wants to pitch in, please do.
... We have good OGC representation. In a round about way we do have them here.

matt: We were trying to include Google in the f2f via the OGC.

<ahill2> another good argument for meeting time change is west coast

cperey: OK, please send me the contact info.

<ahill2> +1

matt: I think we should spend time on this at the f2f.

cperey: We should get people in to that conversation who disagree with us.

matt: *baffled*

cperey: We must spend ten minutes on the OMA liaison request.

<karls> what is the OMA?

<inserted> andy: if we start missing deadlines there's a propensity to let them go on forever.

OMA Liaison

cperey: That came in 24th of Feb how did it take a month?

matt: We were going to bring it up last week, but didn't have a chance to talk about it. It came via my boss, to me to Andy.

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-poiwg/2011Mar/att-0029/ OMA Liaison request

ahill2: What is OMA?

andy: Open Mobile Alliance. A group of operators, OEMs, etc.

<cperey> they are an SDO

<cperey> they are working on a MobAR "Enabler"

<cperey> it is driven by Telecom Italia

andy: They've got things like DM, which does device configuration etc. Device manufacturers support their specs via pressure from operators.

<Ronald> +q

matt: We work on OMA on other standards, we just don't want to overlap, and be sure to share information.

Ronald: Looking at their docs, they are looking at the architecture, and we're looking at the format itself.

<cperey> +1 it is a positive thing

andy: This is only positive. It's the kind of thing we talked about on this call, it's about getting broad adoption.

<cperey> they are working on AR architecture

<ahill2> +1 it is a positive

<karls> sounds good

<cperey> Greek

<cperey> precisely... the links are in the liaison statement

<Zakim> matt, you wanted to ask for pointers to docs?

Ronald: The are links in the statement to presentations.

matt: I meant more technical documents.

Ronald: They are just starting up.

<karls> i have the same link / download problem

andy: I can work on document links too.

ahill2: I can't get access to these documents, weird problems.

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

<scribe> ACTION: matt to figure out how to get access to the documents for everyone [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/23-poiwg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-35 - Figure out how to get access to the documents for everyone [on Matt Womer - due 2011-03-30].

Ronald: That looks like a different document than I have.

ahill2: I think this has been a productive meeting, it's been fun.

matt: +1

F2F start time

Ronald: 9 am start time, doors are open at 8.

<ahill2> my flight doesn't arrive until the morning

andy: Start at 9am.

NOTE: Tuesday start time is 10 am.

ahill2: We talked some about flight times. We were going to break Thursday afternoon early?

andy: It's not leaving early on Thursday, you pretty much need to leave on Friday. It's getting there early in the morning that is difficult.
... If you left Monday you wouldn't be there until lunch on Tuesday.

matt: I'll send my itinerary to the member list, if anyone else wants to follow, please do.

cperey: Which two days are most important?

andy: The second two days.

ahill2: I agree.