12:59:58 RRSAgent has joined #poiwg 12:59:58 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/04/20-poiwg-irc 13:00:00 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:00:00 Zakim has joined #poiwg 13:00:02 Zakim, this will be UW_POI 13:00:02 ok, trackbot; I see UW_POI(POIWG)9:00AM scheduled to start now 13:00:03 Meeting: Points of Interest Working Group Teleconference 13:00:03 Date: 20 April 2011 13:00:06 zakim, dial matt-voip 13:00:06 ok, matt; the call is being made 13:00:07 UW_POI(POIWG)9:00AM has now started 13:00:08 +Matt 13:00:09 (I have my standing class w/ the Semweb CG call now, which I need to join, but i'll read along here) 13:00:17 so regrets from Dan B 13:00:19 zakim, who is on the phone? 13:00:19 On the phone I see Matt 13:00:23 Regrets: danbri 13:00:50 + +3539149aaaa 13:00:55 Regrets+ Ronald 13:01:08 zakim, aaaa is vinod 13:01:08 +vinod; got it 13:01:14 zakim, code? 13:01:14 the conference code is 76494 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), matt 13:01:26 +Alex 13:01:40 Regrets+ Carsten 13:01:42 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/B7B2E88280255C40A477C45E46CF6C25241DDCECC2@usrtmbx01.corpusers.net 13:01:45 +??P22 13:01:57 zakim, ??P22 is Carl_Reed 13:01:58 ahill2 has joined #poiwg 13:01:58 +Carl_Reed; got it 13:02:09 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-poiwg/2011Apr/0029 13:02:16 +Andy 13:02:16 zakim, who is on the phone? 13:02:17 On the phone I see Matt, vinod, Alex, Carl_Reed, Andy 13:02:21 zakim, mute vinod 13:02:21 vinod should now be muted 13:02:23 + +1.312.894.aabb 13:02:27 zakim, unmute vinod 13:02:27 vinod should no longer be muted 13:02:30 fons has joined #poiwg 13:02:45 zakim, aabb is Karl 13:02:45 +Karl; got it 13:02:57 zakim, mute vinod 13:02:57 vinod should now be muted 13:03:01 +Fons 13:03:13 zakim, who is on the phone? 13:03:13 On the phone I see Matt, vinod (muted), Alex, Carl_Reed, Andy, Karl, Fons 13:03:55 + +1.617.764.aacc 13:04:01 matt2 has joined #poiwg 13:04:09 zakim, aacc is Raj 13:04:09 +Raj; got it 13:04:13 matt2 has left #poiwg 13:04:19 danbri_ has joined #poiwg 13:04:23 rsingh2 has joined #poiwg 13:04:44 karls has joined #poiwg 13:04:57 +Bjorn_Bringert 13:05:09 +Bjorn_Bringert is Luca 13:05:20 + +1.617.848.aadd 13:05:30 +Luca 13:05:41 scribe: Matt 13:05:42 Zakim, +Bjorn_Bringert is Luca 13:05:42 sorry, Luca, I do not recognize a party named '+Bjorn_Bringert' 13:05:49 Topic: New call time poll 13:05:51 -> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/45386/POIWG-new-call-time/ Poll 13:05:59 Andy: I'd like to wrap this up, so please answer. 13:06:05 zakim, Bjorn_Bringert is Luca 13:06:05 +Luca; got it 13:06:19 zakim, aadd is Christine 13:06:19 +Christine; got it 13:06:28 zakim, aadd is cperey 13:06:28 sorry, matt, I do not recognize a party named 'aadd' 13:06:34 zakim, Christine is cperey 13:06:34 +cperey; got it 13:06:37 cperey has joined #poiwg 13:06:41 Topic: Are POIs Tangible? 13:06:49 ISSUE-3? 13:06:49 ISSUE-3 -- Core POI spec should provide a way to indicate families of POI, such as commercial brands (eg. starbucks) -- raised 13:06:49 http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/3 13:07:19 Andy: This started as a question about organizations rather than tangibility, but that's where the thread led. 13:08:07 Andy: The list consensus seems to show that for instance, Starbucks could be a presence, but it's not necessarily the concept. 13:08:08 +IanPouncey 13:08:46 +q 13:09:02 karls: POI names change all the time. You still need a metadata association. Does that concept of a chain and it's descendent children exist in our spec? 13:09:23 Carl: I don't disagree that metadata is needed, but it opens a huge can of worms and increases the complexity. 13:09:56 Carl: There was a meeting on gazetters last week, Raj was there. 13:10:05 +1 on getting more use cases and inputs from people who are working in this domain 13:10:32 a URL to this workshop Raj attended? 13:10:33 Raj: There are many people working on large historical gazetters. They talked about the need for a concept with no geography that covered everyones idea of a place. A place that may change over time, or have a different geography than those of the administrators. 13:11:03 Raj: For example: Hampshire, which had no physical boundaries, but also a physical boundary, and a place that everyone knew as Hampshire. 13:11:21 +1 carl 13:11:22 Raj: If you had metadata for this you could do something like link to Dunn and Bradstreet. 13:11:34 linking into third party data sets is practical, or what aspect is not practical? 13:11:58 karls: I'm looking to keep this simple. Example, Starbucks, there could be a POI for Starbucks that then points to Starbucks the corporate entity that could then be pointed to by all of the Starbucks. 13:12:08 karls: It's similar to a POI, but doesn't always have a location. 13:12:22 what is the relationship between Categories and Corporate Entities? 13:12:56 Raj: We're not going to be able to do that as well as the people who for instance collect taxes. I do see the usefulness of the unique ID with real good information, but we're not going to be able to do it as well as an authoritative source. 13:13:08 s/Dunn/Dun/ 13:13:27 karls: D&B has the concept of a chain, they can point to other POIs. 13:13:27 q? 13:13:48 cperey: What isn't practical about doing what is just suggested? Linking to a third party data set? 13:14:34 matt: I don't think it was that we weren't going to link just that we wouldn't define the meaning. 13:14:40 karls: Linking is a core requirement. 13:15:09 karls: I think we're talking about whether POIs have to have a location. If they don't, they can represent concepts. It seems that not requiring a location was opening a can of worms. 13:15:24 karls: For our intents and purposes then it must have one location. 13:15:33 karls: Anything else we can point to. 13:15:50 +1 to POIs having one locatio 13:16:12 matt: I don't think I agree that they must have a location. Can someone expand on that? 13:16:17 s/locatio/location/ 13:16:28 +1 to needing location of some form 13:16:47 karls: I think we decided that at the first f2f, it's how we have been documenting it. 13:16:50 (else we'll just get into linked data and semantics which other people are solving 13:17:01 ahill2: We've talked about having one location, but also having multiple descriptions of that location. 13:17:10 Regrets+ Gary 13:17:32 ahill2: The distinction here is whether something is an entity that exists in the physical world, it might be a place that we only know it's location relative to something else. 13:17:44 Regrets+ Jens 13:17:46 Alex said that we have agreed an entity has to have a location, but the location can be unknown 13:17:53 ahill2: So it is something that is physically located. 13:18:20 Disagreeing: must be a known location, even if it's not fixed 13:18:31 cperey: I think it's important that it have a location, but that it can be unknown. 13:18:34 (or relative) 13:18:56 +q 13:18:57 karls: So, if we all agree with that, we can have something like a corporate entity that we can then chain to that which doesn't have a place. 13:18:59 is Bertine on the call and want to input? 13:19:33 Carl: Christine mentioned relative -- GeoPRIV at IETF has worked on issues related to relative location and uncertainty. 13:19:45 Carl: Those are two important topics dealing with points. 13:19:55 All I would like to point out is that there is no real //meaning/ to an unknown location 13:20:02 ACTION: Carl to send WG pointers to Geopriv documents that deal with location 13:20:02 Created ACTION-64 - Send WG pointers to Geopriv documents that deal with location [on Carl Reed - due 2011-04-27]. 13:20:35 zakim, who is noisy? 13:20:45 matt, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Matt (25%), Carl_Reed (14%), Karl (14%) 13:21:03 +1 to Bertine 13:21:10 karls: I think the motivation for this was that we know a place could have a location, we just haven't resolved it yet. We still want to be able to hold the entity. 13:21:24 Ordnance Survey (UK) is publishing a place name database of the UK. They will come out with a new version in a couple years and see an "intangible POI" as a possible way of helping with versioning -- helping people who link to their POIs link to the new ones 13:21:38 I'm not really sure why a half-written document would be required in the spec. We don't have half-written HTML :p 13:22:28 ahill2: What is the relationship between categories and corporate entities? 13:22:53 karls: I tried to express this in an email that put some meat on the bones of the category primitive. 13:24:12 karls: You can build the same functionality as categories by linking. I struggle with categories as every time we deal with the data, we hit different schemes and then have to map to a standardize scheme, etc. It's all highly subjective and interpretive. I think we're on the edge of search meta data, keywords, etc. I often think maybe we could give it up. 13:24:29 ahill2: Can we come up with a resolution about the relationship between categories and "authoritative sources"? 13:24:41 ahill2: Is it possible that one is less authoritative, and have less value? 13:25:09 karls: I would propose that the category primitive is optional and can be flat or hierarchical. 13:25:18 karls: That it can point to authoritative source URIs, it could link out. 13:25:48 +1 to linking 13:26:12 ahill2: It's possible that in the category tag, there could be similar URIs to other authorities, those that keep track of categories. Is that right? 13:26:29 Hi, Michael and myself were looking at categories and Michael suggested using the existing 'Category knowledge' 13:26:38 http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/ 13:27:00 karls: Everyone has their own proprietary category system that facilitates finding things. Then there are authoritative sources from emerging business standards. Those are bounded in scope to business categories, not things like parks. 13:27:10 karls: You need something to bridge between the two. 13:27:19 Even DBpedia categories(i.e Wikiepdia Categories) seemed interesting 13:27:21 karls: When you talk about chains, you are talking about membership in an association. I am not sure they are the same thing. 13:27:51 Thats OK. :) 13:27:53 If you link to an entry in an authorative database would not that database have a catagory for the entity? 13:29:28 matt: I could see us having the category be collapsed into relationships, e.g. "" 13:29:34 matt: Anyone want to write up some examples. 13:30:09 ahill2: There has been some discussion about having relationships stay specific to some of the location related aspects of POIs, while you suggested that the relationship primitive could be used for everything. 13:30:43 The two should absolutely be seperated. They're two completely different things 13:30:44 ahill2: So you are suggesting that POIs could be conceptual things. Are we in agreement on how far down the road we want to go with relationships? Concepts? Groupings? 13:31:25 Having something be positioned as a child is completely different from being a child of business chain. 13:31:31 Raj: The Atom specs have a great thing on picking authoritative categories. 13:32:43 ahill2: Matt was suggesting that the relationship primitive be used to describe something bigger than just physical relationships. 13:33:42 ahill2: I am a worried about using the relationship primitive to manage these things. 13:34:05 karls: I go back to the theater district example, very vague area. 13:34:18 +1 13:34:29 karls: How do you link to it? What's the POI for the theater district, polygonal? Is that legal? 13:34:59 ahill2: I don't see that as problematic. 13:35:21 ahill2: I was thinking more of using the relationship primitive to establish say a relationship between a McDonalds and the McDonalds corporation. 13:36:05 Carl: Gazetters argue this too. London, is it a point? They use the boundary of London, a polygon, to represent the "point". 13:36:06 information on atom:category is at http://www.atomenabled.org/developers/syndication/#category and http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4287.txt (clause 4.2.2) 13:36:21 +q 13:36:59 ahill2: Some authority has said "this is London's boundaries" -- how do you deal with that authority? 13:37:01 ack ahill 13:37:01 Ryan air can claim to be anywhere and there is not much we can do about it 13:37:27 ahill2: POIs may claim they are in London, but I can see London having a polygonal boundary that doesn't include that POI. What do we do in that case? 13:38:16 karls: To facilitate spatial search, "is this x y in London?" is usually based on the official boundary of London. Then there's administrative hierarchies: country, city, neighborhoods, etc. There's a hierarchy that varies from country to country. 13:39:49 rsingh2: There is the physical relationship, touching, etc. The gazetteer workshop talked about this too. 13:40:33 karls: It's not in our charter to define all of that, we should hook in, facilitate where POIs are -- topological search, geographical, or administrative based searches. 13:41:40 Locations specifications could allow links i.e. link to a remotely hosted (official) polygon of an area 13:42:24 rsingh2: In Atom's category element you have the name of the category, then a pointer to the scheme used for categorization. 13:42:40 -Andy 13:43:02 rsingh2: So you can point to an authority or have free-form tagging. 13:43:08 rsingh2: So you could pull from say dbpedia. 13:43:41 rsingh2: I think this is different than talking about relationships between POIs. 13:43:45 q? 13:43:48 ack rsingh2 13:44:19 karls: It's similar. Categories are a description of a type of thing, which you could do with relationships, but relationships are used for representing membership, etc. I think it's valuable to keep them separate. 13:44:33 +1 13:44:41 ahill: Is there value in extending a relationship to a category or not? 13:44:46 rsingh2: Not in 2011.... 13:45:01 this was a good discussion 13:45:20 ahill: We may be close to something here. We've come back around to the initial topic in some sense. 13:45:36 s/ahill2/ahill/g 13:46:34 if we are depending on db/wikipedia categories, we would be letting users create POIs which don't have location attribute . 13:46:36 !! 13:46:39 ahill: It sounds like we have a consensus that we're not going to represent corporate relationships. That we might have metadata for that. And I would argue that we would restrict the relationship primitive to things like "the theater district". 13:46:43 relationship primtive can encapsulate categories 13:47:12 and concepts are dealt with via categories 13:47:23 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Points of Interests have a location in the physical world, they don't have to be entities, but they have a physical location. 13:47:35 +1 13:47:35 Well 13:47:40 +1 13:47:46 zakim, unmute vinod 13:47:46 vinod should no longer be muted 13:47:50 +1 13:47:52 (well, +2 technically :p) 13:48:12 +1 13:48:21 vinod: If you're relying on a real world category like DBpedia, then we would use those to create POIs without a location. 13:48:27 are we going to say that the physical location can be "empty"? 13:48:40 -Alex 13:48:43 location=unknown is permitted 13:48:44 matt: I think we were going to have a location primitive anyway, but with an unknown location. 13:48:58 vinod: I think we should discuss more. 13:48:59 -2 for the unknown location - really doesn't serve any purpose. Placeholders shouldn't be in there 13:49:06 +Alex 13:49:11 rsingh2: And in the categories we would have things like "this is a coffee shop". 13:49:26 vinod: So can something have no location in a POI? 13:49:35 rsingh2: Yes, but you try not to. But the categories are not the POIs. 13:49:47 Why would we be creating POI's for all wikipedia pages? How does 'Apple' benefit having a POI? 13:49:59 -1 for location=unknown is permitted 13:49:59 we are saying a POI MUST have a location, it could be temporarily unknown 13:50:11 vinod: Categories will have no location in say Wikipedia. If we create categories based on real world things, we would have categories that don't have a location. 13:50:37 vinod: There are categories, say I create a POI and attach a category to them, but that category won't have a location. 13:50:58 karls: We're saying that a POI must have a location, it can be unknown, but it must have one. Categories do not have a location. 13:51:09 rsingh2: A category could be "has handicapped access" or "made of brick". 13:51:34 ahill: I don't think our plan is to have the POI spec be able to describe everything in wikipedia. 13:52:02 -> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Core/Draft#Location_Attribution_Details Location Primitive 13:52:49 -> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Core/Draft#categorization_primitive Category primitive 13:53:13 +1 13:53:18 matt: Has everyone seen what has been written? 13:53:59 matt: Can everyone read those and send feedback to the mailing list? 13:54:08 matt: I would like to have a good draft for next week of the FPWD. 13:54:51 bye bye 13:54:53 zakim, drop me 13:54:53 Matt is being disconnected 13:54:54 -Alex 13:54:54 -Matt 13:54:55 -Carl_Reed 13:54:55 -vinod 13:54:57 -Karl 13:54:57 -Raj 13:54:58 -Fons 13:54:59 -cperey 13:55:01 -IanPouncey 13:55:05 -Luca 13:55:06 UW_POI(POIWG)9:00AM has ended 13:55:07 Attendees were Matt, +3539149aaaa, vinod, Alex, Carl_Reed, Andy, +1.312.894.aabb, Karl, Fons, +1.617.764.aacc, Raj, +1.617.848.aadd, Luca, cperey, IanPouncey 13:55:12 matt: I think rather than digging into the next agenda item that we'll just adjourn now and talk next week. 13:55:24 matt: The call time for next week will remain the same, unless it is announced on the mailing list. 13:55:36 matt: Please fill in the poll at: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/45386/POIWG-new-call-time/ 13:55:41 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:55:41 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/04/20-poiwg-minutes.html matt 13:55:43 Chair: Andy 13:55:58 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:55:58 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/04/20-poiwg-minutes.html matt 13:59:19 JonathanJ has joined #poiwg 14:01:40 JonathanJ has left #poiwg 14:01:50 JonathanJ has joined #poiwg 14:02:34 Sorry Jonathan, we just concluded our meeting. Time change has not been decided upon yet. http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/45386/POIWG-new-call-time/ 14:04:33 OK. thanks. 14:05:10 Andy has left #poiwg 14:42:51 fons has left #poiwg 15:14:04 JonathanJ has left #poiwg 16:14:52 Zakim has left #poiwg 16:55:08 danbri has joined #poiwg 18:54:51 danbri has joined #poiwg