<trackbot> Date: 12 May 2011

<andy> i am not 25

<andy> different and new andy?

<andy> ok

<matt> scribe: ahill2

The FPWD process

<matt> previous minutes

matt: I added 30 issues to push forward the first working draft

<matt> tracker

<robman> thanks...i've had a good look around 8)

matt: I've made some changes to the working draft, related to four actions, that are necessary before publishing

<matt>

matt: welcome to Rob Manson, new Invited Expert

<matt> Newest draft

Matt: The previous core draft has been changed to a listing of the core drafts
... I added numerous definitiions, removed the map georeference, dropped the XML syntax for address, introduced the object primitive (not mapped to XML), and tried to link things up to their issue
... prettied up the XML table, borke out POI and POI elements, made note about uncertaintly of container objects
... added change in section 4.4 reference the WGS84 coordinate system
... made a comment about "points" (i.e. do we want to put latitude and lognitude by order or specific elements
... the atom category element only allowed for one, but I tried to address this
... incorporated a lot of comments from Leigh into the XML examples
... appendix A includes the sue cases from the Wiki

use

matt: trying to use a tool that generates links to existing standards - once completed this will remove the red error boxes

carl: in the future when I submit comments, how should I go about it?

mattt: create a new thread on the public poi mailing list for each issue (i.e "here are our thoughts on time primitive")

matt: is would be nice is you can find a related issue and add something like "ISSUE-/14" in the subject line

it would be

matt: I just found the EPG information in the sidebar, I may have to tweak the document before publishing today

<matt> blog on editor's draft

matt: again, this is just the first public working draft and the bar is relatively low - see link
... pushing out the editors draft already has generated a lot of feedback. so we can expect this publication to build momentum and bring in other voices
... I wasn't able to get the object primitive that Christine pushed into the document; and understand from her this might alienate some from the AR crowd

<andy> +1 to moving foward

<robman> +1

+1

<fons> +1

<matt> RESOLUTION: WG will publish FPWD today

<andy> sticking on mute with phone issue for now

matt: we have resolved to publish the FPWD today

<andy> lets do that

Open Issues

<matt>

matt: ok, going with open issues

<matt> Raised Issues

matt: issues are first raised, then they can be opened, then a pending review, otherwised postponed

<andy> +1

matt: I suggest we just use raised and closed, please ignore other stateds

states

<matt> issue-19?

<trackbot> ISSUE-19 -- How should we represent points? -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/19

<matt> issue-20?

<trackbot> ISSUE-20 -- How should we represent lines? -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/20

does anyone on the call have an issue they want to discuss?

<matt> issue-21?

<trackbot> ISSUE-21 -- How should we specify the coordinate system used? -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/21

matt: these issues relate to how to represent points and polygons

<matt> For example: <gml:Point><gml:pos>42.360890561289295 -71.09139204025269</gml:pos></gml:Point>

<matt> <point latitude="42.360890561289295" longitude="-71.09139204025269"/>

don't these "paths" tend to be separate formats than a single point?

<matt> ISO19907

carl: the GML is grounded in ISO19907
... GML also uses the same base as geojson
... the order of latitude and longitude depends on the coordinate system being used

<robman> +1 to linking geo param ordering on crs

<matt> ISSUE-22?

<trackbot> ISSUE-22 -- How should we represent polygons? -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/22

carl: in China, legally you canot use WGS84, but their government system happens to be similar
... for polygon geometry, Raj submitted the GML encoding because it is consistent with ISO19907

<matt> ACTION: Carl to look at ISSUE-22 ISSUE-20 ISSUE-21 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-76 - Look at ISSUE-22 ISSUE-20 ISSUE-21 [on Carl Reed - due 2011-05-19].

certainly have no investment in re-inventing this wheel

matt: while we don't want to reinvent, we do have some responsibility to making this consumable and usable by the average web developer

<robman> carl - does GML handle relative points or just crs defined geolocations?

matt: simple things simple, hard things possible

<andy> +1

carl would you repeat the standard you mentioned is getting used by developers?

carl: in the current implementation, developers could change the default coordinate system, but the default remains WGS84

<andy> +1

<andy> to only use international standards

carl: we got some suggestions for using X and Y, but since there wasn't any international standard we had to reject that

rob; doe GML support relative objects?

carl: yes, relative and moving objects

can we get a link to an example of this?

<matt> ISSUE-27?

<trackbot> ISSUE-27 -- What issues arise from using namespaces in the XML serialization? -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/27

<robman> serialisation

matt: there was some concern about using external namespaces because it doesn't map into JSON
... obviously there is a broader concern about breaking some use cases like JSON, etc.

<andy> assign me some thing

<matt> ACTION: manson to work on ISSUE-27 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-77 - Work on ISSUE-27 [on Rob Manson - due 2011-05-19].

matt: if you raised an issue and I created it, doesn't mean I was trying to take the credit (or blame)

<matt> ISSUE-32?

<trackbot> ISSUE-32 -- Does map georeference side definition need additional info? -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/32

<matt> ACTION: karl to address ISSUE-32 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.html#action03]

matt: anyone want to take this issue on?

<trackbot> Created ACTION-78 - Address ISSUE-32 [on Karl Seiler - due 2011-05-19].

<matt> ISSUE-37?

<matt> ISSUE-37?

<trackbot> ISSUE-37 -- Should we use geo URIs? -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/37

matt: don't think we understand geo uri's are

<trackbot> ISSUE-37 -- Should we use geo URIs? -- raised

<matt> GeoURIs RFC

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/37

<andy> ok

<andy> sure

<matt> ACTION: Andy to review RFC 5870 for ISSUE-37 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-79 - Review RFC 5870 for ISSUE-37 [on Andrew Braun - due 2011-05-19].

matt: the document is unfriendly and it suggests an alternate way to reference latitude and longitude

the RTF document

<matt> ISSUE-41?

<trackbot> ISSUE-41 -- Which language codes should we use? -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/41

matt: agenda item language codes
... I wasn't comfortable bringing a lot of XML specific things up into the data model
... the the ISO Mark III language specs has much to do with transactions systems

<matt> ACTION: matt to look at ISSUE-41 and report back on which we should use: xml:lang and ISO MARC Alpha 3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-80 - Look at ISSUE-41 and report back on which we should use: xml:lang and ISO MARC Alpha 3 [on Matt Womer - due 2011-05-19].

+q

<robman> yes pls

<robman> 8)

matt: let's talk a little bit about actions and issues
... actions are specific goals (i.e. do xy and z)
... issues are broader and you can break an issue up into a number of actions
... the mechanics are that we have this web-based tracker
... it looks for content like "ACTION-\14" and inserts links into the mailing list and irc when possible

I'm escaping to avoid confusion

<robman> is there any specific deliverable format for actions? or at least types

alex: do we need a conference call to "resolve" and issue?

matt: some other groups use extra fields in the issues to handle contentious issues
... we can trust individuals to close their own action items

<robman> cool

<robman> what you said was good

matt: people should send a mail to the group saying " hey I've completed this action #"

last longer when you are scribing

matt: we are having trouble getting Budapest meeting space with the OMA meeting
... Andy is leaning towards the Denver OGS meeting in September

+q

when is OMA?

<matt> poll results

<robman> sorry but i have to leave - talk to you all next time and see some of you at ARE

<robman> works for me...bye

<matt> [[Budapest, Hungary, before, during, or after OMA's member meeting June 27-July 1]]

<matt> ahill2: We need to resolve this soon.

<matt> ACTION: Andy to resolve whether we are going to Budapest or not [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-81 - Resolve whether we are going to Budapest or not [on Andrew Braun - due 2011-05-19].

<fons> I will not attend next weeks telco, being on a return trip from Bilbao

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136  of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: ahill2
Inferring ScribeNick: ahill2
Default Present: Matt, +31.20.592.aaaa, fons, ahill2, Carl_Reed, robman, +1.919.599.aabb, Andy
Present: Matt +31.20.592.aaaa fons ahill2 Carl_Reed robman +1.919.599.aabb Andy
Regrets: Cperey Jens Ronald
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-poiwg/2011May/0041.html
Found Date: 12 May 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.html
People with action items: andy carl karl manson matt

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.