2011-04-20T12:59:58Z RRSAgent has joined #poiwg 2011-04-20T12:59:58Z logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/04/20-poiwg-irc 2011-04-20T13:00:00Z RRSAgent, make logs public 2011-04-20T13:00:00Z Zakim has joined #poiwg 2011-04-20T13:00:02Z Zakim, this will be UW_POI 2011-04-20T13:00:02Z ok, trackbot; I see UW_POI(POIWG)9:00AM scheduled to start now 2011-04-20T13:00:03Z Meeting: Points of Interest Working Group Teleconference 2011-04-20T13:00:03Z Date: 20 April 2011 2011-04-20T13:00:06Z zakim, dial matt-voip 2011-04-20T13:00:06Z ok, matt; the call is being made 2011-04-20T13:00:07Z UW_POI(POIWG)9:00AM has now started 2011-04-20T13:00:08Z +Matt 2011-04-20T13:00:09Z (I have my standing class w/ the Semweb CG call now, which I need to join, but i'll read along here) 2011-04-20T13:00:17Z so regrets from Dan B 2011-04-20T13:00:19Z zakim, who is on the phone? 2011-04-20T13:00:19Z On the phone I see Matt 2011-04-20T13:00:23Z Regrets: danbri 2011-04-20T13:00:50Z + +3539149aaaa 2011-04-20T13:00:55Z Regrets+ Ronald 2011-04-20T13:01:08Z zakim, aaaa is vinod 2011-04-20T13:01:08Z +vinod; got it 2011-04-20T13:01:14Z zakim, code? 2011-04-20T13:01:14Z the conference code is 76494 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), matt 2011-04-20T13:01:26Z +Alex 2011-04-20T13:01:40Z Regrets+ Carsten 2011-04-20T13:01:42Z Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/B7B2E88280255C40A477C45E46CF6C25241DDCECC2@usrtmbx01.corpusers.net 2011-04-20T13:01:45Z +??P22 2011-04-20T13:01:57Z zakim, ??P22 is Carl_Reed 2011-04-20T13:01:58Z ahill2 has joined #poiwg 2011-04-20T13:01:58Z +Carl_Reed; got it 2011-04-20T13:02:09Z Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-poiwg/2011Apr/0029 2011-04-20T13:02:16Z +Andy 2011-04-20T13:02:16Z zakim, who is on the phone? 2011-04-20T13:02:17Z On the phone I see Matt, vinod, Alex, Carl_Reed, Andy 2011-04-20T13:02:21Z zakim, mute vinod 2011-04-20T13:02:21Z vinod should now be muted 2011-04-20T13:02:23Z + +1.312.894.aabb 2011-04-20T13:02:27Z zakim, unmute vinod 2011-04-20T13:02:27Z vinod should no longer be muted 2011-04-20T13:02:30Z fons has joined #poiwg 2011-04-20T13:02:45Z zakim, aabb is Karl 2011-04-20T13:02:45Z +Karl; got it 2011-04-20T13:02:57Z zakim, mute vinod 2011-04-20T13:02:57Z vinod should now be muted 2011-04-20T13:03:01Z +Fons 2011-04-20T13:03:13Z zakim, who is on the phone? 2011-04-20T13:03:13Z On the phone I see Matt, vinod (muted), Alex, Carl_Reed, Andy, Karl, Fons 2011-04-20T13:03:55Z + +1.617.764.aacc 2011-04-20T13:04:01Z matt2 has joined #poiwg 2011-04-20T13:04:09Z zakim, aacc is Raj 2011-04-20T13:04:09Z +Raj; got it 2011-04-20T13:04:13Z matt2 has left #poiwg 2011-04-20T13:04:19Z danbri_ has joined #poiwg 2011-04-20T13:04:23Z rsingh2 has joined #poiwg 2011-04-20T13:04:44Z karls has joined #poiwg 2011-04-20T13:04:57Z +Bjorn_Bringert 2011-04-20T13:05:09Z +Bjorn_Bringert is Luca 2011-04-20T13:05:20Z + +1.617.848.aadd 2011-04-20T13:05:30Z +Luca 2011-04-20T13:05:41Z scribe: Matt 2011-04-20T13:05:42Z Zakim, +Bjorn_Bringert is Luca 2011-04-20T13:05:42Z sorry, Luca, I do not recognize a party named '+Bjorn_Bringert' 2011-04-20T13:05:49Z Topic: New call time poll 2011-04-20T13:05:51Z -> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/45386/POIWG-new-call-time/ Poll 2011-04-20T13:05:59Z Andy: I'd like to wrap this up, so please answer. 2011-04-20T13:06:05Z zakim, Bjorn_Bringert is Luca 2011-04-20T13:06:05Z +Luca; got it 2011-04-20T13:06:19Z zakim, aadd is Christine 2011-04-20T13:06:19Z +Christine; got it 2011-04-20T13:06:28Z zakim, aadd is cperey 2011-04-20T13:06:28Z sorry, matt, I do not recognize a party named 'aadd' 2011-04-20T13:06:34Z zakim, Christine is cperey 2011-04-20T13:06:34Z +cperey; got it 2011-04-20T13:06:37Z cperey has joined #poiwg 2011-04-20T13:06:41Z Topic: Are POIs Tangible? 2011-04-20T13:06:49Z ISSUE-3? 2011-04-20T13:06:49Z ISSUE-3 -- Core POI spec should provide a way to indicate families of POI, such as commercial brands (eg. starbucks) -- raised 2011-04-20T13:06:49Z http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/3 2011-04-20T13:07:19Z Andy: This started as a question about organizations rather than tangibility, but that's where the thread led. 2011-04-20T13:08:07Z Andy: The list consensus seems to show that for instance, Starbucks could be a presence, but it's not necessarily the concept. 2011-04-20T13:08:08Z +IanPouncey 2011-04-20T13:08:46Z +q 2011-04-20T13:09:02Z 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? 2011-04-20T13:09:23Z Carl: I don't disagree that metadata is needed, but it opens a huge can of worms and increases the complexity. 2011-04-20T13:09:56Z Carl: There was a meeting on gazetters last week, Raj was there. 2011-04-20T13:10:05Z +1 on getting more use cases and inputs from people who are working in this domain 2011-04-20T13:10:32Z a URL to this workshop Raj attended? 2011-04-20T13:10:33Z 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. 2011-04-20T13:11:03Z Raj: For example: Hampshire, which had no physical boundaries, but also a physical boundary, and a place that everyone knew as Hampshire. 2011-04-20T13:11:21Z +1 carl 2011-04-20T13:11:22Z Raj: If you had metadata for this you could do something like link to Dunn and Bradstreet. 2011-04-20T13:11:34Z linking into third party data sets is practical, or what aspect is not practical? 2011-04-20T13:11:58Z 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. 2011-04-20T13:12:08Z karls: It's similar to a POI, but doesn't always have a location. 2011-04-20T13:12:22Z what is the relationship between Categories and Corporate Entities? 2011-04-20T13:12:56Z 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. 2011-04-20T13:13:08Z s/Dunn/Dun/ 2011-04-20T13:13:27Z karls: D&B has the concept of a chain, they can point to other POIs. 2011-04-20T13:13:27Z q? 2011-04-20T13:13:48Z cperey: What isn't practical about doing what is just suggested? Linking to a third party data set? 2011-04-20T13:14:34Z matt: I don't think it was that we weren't going to link just that we wouldn't define the meaning. 2011-04-20T13:14:40Z karls: Linking is a core requirement. 2011-04-20T13:15:09Z 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. 2011-04-20T13:15:24Z karls: For our intents and purposes then it must have one location. 2011-04-20T13:15:33Z karls: Anything else we can point to. 2011-04-20T13:15:50Z +1 to POIs having one locatio 2011-04-20T13:16:12Z matt: I don't think I agree that they must have a location. Can someone expand on that? 2011-04-20T13:16:17Z s/locatio/location/ 2011-04-20T13:16:28Z +1 to needing location of some form 2011-04-20T13:16:47Z karls: I think we decided that at the first f2f, it's how we have been documenting it. 2011-04-20T13:16:50Z (else we'll just get into linked data and semantics which other people are solving 2011-04-20T13:17:01Z ahill2: We've talked about having one location, but also having multiple descriptions of that location. 2011-04-20T13:17:10Z Regrets+ Gary 2011-04-20T13:17:32Z 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. 2011-04-20T13:17:44Z Regrets+ Jens 2011-04-20T13:17:46Z Alex said that we have agreed an entity has to have a location, but the location can be unknown 2011-04-20T13:17:53Z ahill2: So it is something that is physically located. 2011-04-20T13:18:20Z Disagreeing: must be a known location, even if it's not fixed 2011-04-20T13:18:31Z cperey: I think it's important that it have a location, but that it can be unknown. 2011-04-20T13:18:34Z (or relative) 2011-04-20T13:18:56Z +q 2011-04-20T13:18:57Z 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. 2011-04-20T13:18:59Z is Bertine on the call and want to input? 2011-04-20T13:19:33Z Carl: Christine mentioned relative -- GeoPRIV at IETF has worked on issues related to relative location and uncertainty. 2011-04-20T13:19:45Z Carl: Those are two important topics dealing with points. 2011-04-20T13:19:55Z All I would like to point out is that there is no real //meaning/ to an unknown location 2011-04-20T13:20:02Z ACTION: Carl to send WG pointers to Geopriv documents that deal with location 2011-04-20T13:20:02Z Created ACTION-64 - Send WG pointers to Geopriv documents that deal with location [on Carl Reed - due 2011-04-27]. 2011-04-20T13:20:35Z zakim, who is noisy? 2011-04-20T13:20:45Z matt, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Matt (25%), Carl_Reed (14%), Karl (14%) 2011-04-20T13:21:03Z +1 to Bertine 2011-04-20T13:21:10Z 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. 2011-04-20T13:21:24Z 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 2011-04-20T13:21:38Z I'm not really sure why a half-written document would be required in the spec. We don't have half-written HTML :p 2011-04-20T13:22:28Z ahill2: What is the relationship between categories and corporate entities? 2011-04-20T13:22:53Z karls: I tried to express this in an email that put some meat on the bones of the category primitive. 2011-04-20T13:24:12Z 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. 2011-04-20T13:24:29Z ahill2: Can we come up with a resolution about the relationship between categories and "authoritative sources"? 2011-04-20T13:24:41Z ahill2: Is it possible that one is less authoritative, and have less value? 2011-04-20T13:25:09Z karls: I would propose that the category primitive is optional and can be flat or hierarchical. 2011-04-20T13:25:18Z karls: That it can point to authoritative source URIs, it could link out. 2011-04-20T13:25:48Z +1 to linking 2011-04-20T13:26:12Z 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? 2011-04-20T13:26:29Z Hi, Michael and myself were looking at categories and Michael suggested using the existing 'Category knowledge' 2011-04-20T13:26:38Z http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/ 2011-04-20T13:27:00Z 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. 2011-04-20T13:27:10Z karls: You need something to bridge between the two. 2011-04-20T13:27:19Z Even DBpedia categories(i.e Wikiepdia Categories) seemed interesting 2011-04-20T13:27:21Z karls: When you talk about chains, you are talking about membership in an association. I am not sure they are the same thing. 2011-04-20T13:27:51Z Thats OK. :) 2011-04-20T13:27:53Z If you link to an entry in an authorative database would not that database have a catagory for the entity? 2011-04-20T13:29:28Z matt: I could see us having the category be collapsed into relationships, e.g. "<relationship type='is-a' link='http://starbucks...'/>" 2011-04-20T13:29:34Z matt: Anyone want to write up some examples. 2011-04-20T13:30:09Z 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. 2011-04-20T13:30:43Z The two should absolutely be seperated. They're two completely different things 2011-04-20T13:30:44Z 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? 2011-04-20T13:31:25Z Having something be positioned as a child is completely different from being a child of business chain. 2011-04-20T13:31:31Z Raj: The Atom specs have a great thing on picking authoritative categories. 2011-04-20T13:32:43Z ahill2: Matt was suggesting that the relationship primitive be used to describe something bigger than just physical relationships. 2011-04-20T13:33:42Z ahill2: I am a worried about using the relationship primitive to manage these things. 2011-04-20T13:34:05Z karls: I go back to the theater district example, very vague area. 2011-04-20T13:34:18Z +1 2011-04-20T13:34:29Z karls: How do you link to it? What's the POI for the theater district, polygonal? Is that legal? 2011-04-20T13:34:59Z ahill2: I don't see that as problematic. 2011-04-20T13:35:21Z ahill2: I was thinking more of using the relationship primitive to establish say a relationship between a McDonalds and the McDonalds corporation. 2011-04-20T13:36:05Z Carl: Gazetters argue this too. London, is it a point? They use the boundary of London, a polygon, to represent the "point". 2011-04-20T13:36:06Z 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) 2011-04-20T13:36:21Z +q 2011-04-20T13:36:59Z ahill2: Some authority has said "this is London's boundaries" -- how do you deal with that authority? 2011-04-20T13:37:01Z ack ahill 2011-04-20T13:37:01Z Ryan air can claim to be anywhere and there is not much we can do about it 2011-04-20T13:37:27Z 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? 2011-04-20T13:38:16Z 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. 2011-04-20T13:39:49Z rsingh2: There is the physical relationship, touching, etc. The gazetteer workshop talked about this too. 2011-04-20T13:40:33Z 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. 2011-04-20T13:41:40Z Locations specifications could allow links i.e. link to a remotely hosted (official) polygon of an area 2011-04-20T13:42:24Z rsingh2: In Atom's category element you have the name of the category, then a pointer to the scheme used for categorization. 2011-04-20T13:42:40Z -Andy 2011-04-20T13:43:02Z rsingh2: So you can point to an authority or have free-form tagging. 2011-04-20T13:43:08Z rsingh2: So you could pull from say dbpedia. 2011-04-20T13:43:41Z rsingh2: I think this is different than talking about relationships between POIs. 2011-04-20T13:43:45Z q? 2011-04-20T13:43:48Z ack rsingh2 2011-04-20T13:44:19Z 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. 2011-04-20T13:44:33Z +1 2011-04-20T13:44:41Z ahill: Is there value in extending a relationship to a category or not? 2011-04-20T13:44:46Z rsingh2: Not in 2011.... 2011-04-20T13:45:01Z this was a good discussion 2011-04-20T13:45:20Z ahill: We may be close to something here. We've come back around to the initial topic in some sense. 2011-04-20T13:45:36Z s/ahill2/ahill/g 2011-04-20T13:46:34Z if we are depending on db/wikipedia categories, we would be letting users create POIs which don't have location attribute . 2011-04-20T13:46:36Z !! 2011-04-20T13:46:39Z 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". 2011-04-20T13:46:43Z relationship primtive can encapsulate categories 2011-04-20T13:47:12Z and concepts are dealt with via categories 2011-04-20T13:47:23Z 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. 2011-04-20T13:47:35Z +1 2011-04-20T13:47:35Z Well 2011-04-20T13:47:40Z +1 2011-04-20T13:47:46Z zakim, unmute vinod 2011-04-20T13:47:46Z vinod should no longer be muted 2011-04-20T13:47:50Z +1 2011-04-20T13:47:52Z (well, +2 technically :p) 2011-04-20T13:48:12Z +1 2011-04-20T13:48:21Z vinod: If you're relying on a real world category like DBpedia, then we would use those to create POIs without a location. 2011-04-20T13:48:27Z are we going to say that the physical location can be "empty"? 2011-04-20T13:48:40Z -Alex 2011-04-20T13:48:43Z location=unknown is permitted 2011-04-20T13:48:44Z matt: I think we were going to have a location primitive anyway, but with an unknown location. 2011-04-20T13:48:58Z vinod: I think we should discuss more. 2011-04-20T13:48:59Z -2 for the unknown location - really doesn't serve any purpose. Placeholders shouldn't be in there 2011-04-20T13:49:06Z +Alex 2011-04-20T13:49:11Z rsingh2: And in the categories we would have things like "this is a coffee shop". 2011-04-20T13:49:26Z vinod: So can something have no location in a POI? 2011-04-20T13:49:35Z rsingh2: Yes, but you try not to. But the categories are not the POIs. 2011-04-20T13:49:47Z Why would we be creating POI's for all wikipedia pages? How does 'Apple' benefit having a POI? 2011-04-20T13:49:59Z -1 for location=unknown is permitted 2011-04-20T13:49:59Z we are saying a POI MUST have a location, it could be temporarily unknown 2011-04-20T13:50:11Z 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. 2011-04-20T13:50:37Z vinod: There are categories, say I create a POI and attach a category to them, but that category won't have a location. 2011-04-20T13:50:58Z 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. 2011-04-20T13:51:09Z rsingh2: A category could be "has handicapped access" or "made of brick". 2011-04-20T13:51:34Z ahill: I don't think our plan is to have the POI spec be able to describe everything in wikipedia. 2011-04-20T13:52:02Z -> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Core/Draft#Location_Attribution_Details Location Primitive 2011-04-20T13:52:49Z -> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Core/Draft#categorization_primitive Category primitive 2011-04-20T13:53:13Z +1 2011-04-20T13:53:18Z matt: Has everyone seen what has been written? 2011-04-20T13:53:59Z matt: Can everyone read those and send feedback to the mailing list? 2011-04-20T13:54:08Z matt: I would like to have a good draft for next week of the FPWD. 2011-04-20T13:54:51Z bye bye 2011-04-20T13:54:53Z zakim, drop me 2011-04-20T13:54:53Z Matt is being disconnected 2011-04-20T13:54:54Z -Alex 2011-04-20T13:54:54Z -Matt 2011-04-20T13:54:55Z -Carl_Reed 2011-04-20T13:54:55Z -vinod 2011-04-20T13:54:57Z -Karl 2011-04-20T13:54:57Z -Raj 2011-04-20T13:54:58Z -Fons 2011-04-20T13:54:59Z -cperey 2011-04-20T13:55:01Z -IanPouncey 2011-04-20T13:55:05Z -Luca 2011-04-20T13:55:06Z UW_POI(POIWG)9:00AM has ended 2011-04-20T13:55:07Z 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 2011-04-20T13:55:12Z matt: I think rather than digging into the next agenda item that we'll just adjourn now and talk next week. 2011-04-20T13:55:24Z matt: The call time for next week will remain the same, unless it is announced on the mailing list. 2011-04-20T13:55:36Z matt: Please fill in the poll at: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/45386/POIWG-new-call-time/ 2011-04-20T13:55:41Z rrsagent, draft minutes 2011-04-20T13:55:41Z I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/04/20-poiwg-minutes.html matt 2011-04-20T13:55:43Z Chair: Andy 2011-04-20T13:55:58Z rrsagent, draft minutes 2011-04-20T13:55:58Z I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/04/20-poiwg-minutes.html matt