IRC log of sdw on 2015-06-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

12:51:42 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sdw
12:51:42 [RRSAgent]
logging to
12:51:44 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
12:51:44 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #sdw
12:51:46 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SDW
12:51:46 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
12:51:47 [trackbot]
Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
12:51:47 [trackbot]
Date: 03 June 2015
12:51:55 [kerry]
present+ kerry
12:55:36 [Frans]
Frans has joined #sdw
12:57:02 [kerry]
regrets+ clemens
12:57:40 [Rachel]
Rachel has joined #sdw
12:57:53 [Rachel]
present+ Rachel
12:58:05 [SimonCox]
SimonCox has joined #sdw
12:58:34 [eparsons]
eparsons has joined #sdw
12:59:16 [billroberts]
billroberts has joined #sdw
12:59:21 [aharth]
aharth has joined #sdw
12:59:29 [aharth]
present+ aharth
12:59:41 [eparsons]
trackbot, start meeting
12:59:43 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
12:59:45 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SDW
12:59:45 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
12:59:46 [trackbot]
Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
12:59:46 [trackbot]
Date: 03 June 2015
13:00:10 [Alejandro_Llaves]
Alejandro_Llaves has joined #sdw
13:00:33 [Alejandro_Llaves]
present+ Alejandro_Llaves
13:00:50 [billroberts]
present+ billrobets
13:00:59 [billroberts]
present+ billroberts
13:01:08 [phila]
present+ PhilA
13:01:15 [phila]
chair: Ed
13:01:26 [phila]
13:01:31 [LarsG]
LarsG has joined #sdw
13:01:48 [phila]
Regrets+ Antoine Zimmermann, Andrea, Philippe Thiran, Clemens Portele
13:01:51 [MattPerry]
MattPerry has joined #sdw
13:01:57 [LarsG]
Present+ LarsG
13:02:00 [ChrisLittle]
ChrisLittle has joined #sdw
13:02:07 [jtandy]
jtandy has joined #sdw
13:02:21 [MattPerry]
present+ MattPerry
13:02:29 [eparsons]
present+ eparsons
13:02:38 [phila]
Meeting URL is at
13:02:39 [ChrisLittle]
13:02:49 [IanHolt]
IanHolt has joined #sdw
13:03:03 [phila]
present+ ChrisLittle
13:03:04 [SimonCox]
Present+ SImonCox
13:03:09 [Linda]
Linda has joined #sdw
13:03:16 [aharth]
present+ aharth
13:03:42 [jtandy]
present+ jtandy
13:03:44 [Linda]
Present+ Linda
13:03:58 [Frans]
present+ Frans
13:03:59 [jtandy]
present+ jtandy
13:04:17 [IanHolt]
present+ IanHolt
13:04:17 [stlemme]
stlemme has joined #sdw
13:04:17 [Frans]
Still working on audio...
13:04:29 [ahaller2_]
ahaller2_ has joined #sdw
13:04:46 [IanHolt]
Trying to fix audio this end
13:04:52 [SimonCox]
13:05:16 [SimonCox]
4th floor
13:06:17 [phila]
scribe: phila
13:06:24 [phila]
scribeNick: phila
13:06:27 [SimonCox]
I recall in the 1970s the Met Office tried to come up with a catchy little ditty to explain Celsius.
13:06:42 [SimonCox]
5, 10 and 21 - Winter Spring and Summer Sun (!)
13:06:46 [phila]
ed: Recalls last week's minutes
13:07:17 [phila]
eparsons: recalls the OGC Patent Call
13:07:19 [kerry]
13:07:30 [phila]
PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes, such as they are, see
13:07:35 [jtandy]
13:07:39 [ChrisLittle]
and even I was not at Met Office
13:07:40 [eparsons]
13:07:41 [kerry]
13:07:43 [billroberts]
13:07:44 [phila]
13:07:46 [Linda]
13:07:48 [MattPerry]
13:07:54 [ChrisLittle]
+1 minutes
13:07:56 [phila]
RESOLVED: Accept last week's minutes, such as they are, see
13:08:12 [phila]
Topic: Status of the UCR
13:08:34 [phila]
eparsons: Main order of business today is progress with UCR. Next step is to make it a First Public Working Draft
13:08:52 [phila]
-> Editor's draft
13:09:13 [phila]
eparsons: It's a formal step. You need to be happy with the doc as it stands. It's not final of course
13:09:32 [phila]
... we're saying to the world, here it is, come and take a look and see how we're doing, how we're thinking
13:09:41 [ChrisLittle]
+2 to Alejandro, Frans
13:09:47 [ahaller2]
ahaller2 has joined #sdw
13:10:15 [Alejandro_Llaves]
Thanks! :)
13:10:52 [Linda]
Yes very nice work Frans and Alejandro!
13:12:17 [phila]
phila: Gives a bit more background
13:12:21 [billroberts]
13:12:24 [phila]
eparsons: Asks for any further points?
13:12:27 [phila]
ack billroberts
13:12:29 [eparsons]
ack next
13:12:40 [phila]
billroberts: Thanks Frans and Alejandro
13:12:55 [phila]
... I see an e-mail question Frans raised about spatial relations etc.
13:13:06 [phila]
... Frans had suggested a modified form of that requirement
13:13:12 [Frans]
13:13:17 [phila]
... I just wanted to know what the status of the editing process is
13:13:38 [phila]
... are there still things to be done or is the doc as it is the version we're going to publish?
13:14:01 [eparsons]
ack next
13:14:03 [phila]
eparsons: good point. It's not saying it's complete and that there are no ongoing issues. It's "we're mostly happy for it to be discussed in public"
13:14:05 [phila]
ack Frans
13:14:18 [phila]
Frans: This is an example of one of the many issues to be resolved
13:14:32 [phila]
... the UCR has a broad scope. There are many differnet subjects and issues that need to be processed
13:14:39 [phila]
... some subjects hairly, some simple
13:14:44 [phila]
... but they haven't all be processed yet
13:14:58 [phila]
... what i want to achieve is that we don't overlook anythiung that still needs to be processed
13:15:12 [phila]
... Alejandro_Llaves wanted to flag the remaining issues and associate them in the UCR
13:15:22 [jtandy]
13:15:25 [phila]
... if there is time for that, that's a final thing we could do before it reached FPWD status
13:15:38 [Alejandro_Llaves]
13:15:41 [phila]
... at least have some kind of completeness - the idea that we have eveything in our sights.
13:15:52 [phila]
... For some of our reqs we haven't found the optimal phrasing yet
13:16:02 [eparsons]
ack next
13:16:08 [phila]
ack jtandy
13:16:22 [phila]
jtandy: Before we move to FPWD, I think we should definitely reference the issues in our tracker
13:16:34 [phila]
... It says "we know there's still some stuff outdstanding here"
13:16:45 [phila]
... so people don't ask us why we're not thinkinbg about something that we are
13:16:48 [Linda]
+1 to referencing issues
13:16:52 [phila]
eparsons: So what concrete steps do we need to take?
13:16:54 [jtandy]
13:17:13 [phila]
jtandy: If we look at the issue sin the tracker, we need to add a para using the issues CSS class, to link to that
13:17:22 [phila]
... I have a link that describes how to do that
13:17:32 [phila]
eparsons: So this is a further steo for the editos do to over the coming days
13:17:36 [jtandy]
see discussion in email thread
13:17:42 [phila]
Frans: I agree with that course of action
13:17:58 [phila]
Frans: If we are meant to vote on the doc, do we still have time to put those issues in?
13:18:03 [phila]
phila: Yes
13:18:04 [Rachel]
+1 to referencing issues within the UCR document
13:18:13 [kerry]
+1 to caveat as discussed
13:18:18 [eparsons]
ack next
13:18:33 [phila]
Frans: That's nice, thanks
13:18:50 [phila]
... It's easier for WG members to check if their issue in in the tracker than if it is in the doc correctly
13:19:17 [phila]
eparsons: We might have an opportunity to do this as we may want to sync OGC and W3C publishing - which takes 3 weeks+ - next agendum!
13:19:53 [phila]
Alejandro_Llaves: I wanted to say that Jeremy's suggestion is good. He gave example of how this has been done elsewhere. We committed to having the issues integrated in the doc
13:19:53 [kerry]
q+ to speak on what about new issues from here on?
13:20:10 [phila]
... But we need to recognise the massive number of e-mails in the last few weeks
13:20:17 [phila]
... So we'll work on the cross linking
13:20:36 [phila]
... I'm fine with voting today, accounting for still adding the issues.
13:20:49 [Linda]
13:20:49 [phila]
... but I would ask not to add new issues until we've done that
13:20:57 [phila]
... or there will never be an FPWD
13:21:01 [phila]
eparsons: That seems fair
13:21:18 [eparsons]
ack next
13:21:20 [Zakim]
kerry, you wanted to speak on what about new issues from here on?
13:21:21 [phila]
eparsons: Assuming we don't vote today, no new issues until tracker items have been integrated.
13:21:22 [phila]
ack kerry
13:21:32 [phila]
kerry: My comments was closely related.
13:21:46 [cperey]
cperey has joined #sdw
13:21:47 [phila]
... What do we do about issues still in people's heads but not in the tracker?
13:21:58 [phila]
... I guess the answer is, keep them in your head and hold off for now
13:22:17 [Frans]
13:22:17 [phila]
kerry: maybe we should announce the issue(s) we're going to work on for each meeting
13:22:18 [eparsons]
ack next
13:22:33 [phila]
Linda: What about issues that were raised by e-mail but that are not yet in the tracker?
13:22:33 [eparsons]
ack next
13:22:40 [phila]
Frans: We'll put them in the tracker
13:22:47 [phila]
... and link from the UCR
13:22:57 [phila]
... so that we can check for completeness.
13:23:11 [phila]
Linda: So are you going to do that or should I do that for my issues?
13:23:24 [phila]
Frans: Dunno if Alejandro_Llaves agreesm, but the editors can make a start
13:23:25 [Alejandro_Llaves]
13:23:31 [eparsons]
ack next
13:23:36 [phila]
Frans: The editos should have a good overview of outstanding issues
13:23:47 [phila]
Alejandro_Llaves: I;m fine with that as a first procedure for now
13:23:54 [jtandy]
13:24:14 [jtandy]
13:24:18 [phila]
... But in future, as all Wg memebrs have access to the tracker, and we have explained how to use it, I think it would be easier for that individual to describe their issues in the tracker
13:24:20 [phila]
13:24:27 [Rachel]
13:24:34 [phila]
Alejandro_Llaves: Otherwise we end up exhanging e-mails and they're not tracked
13:25:18 [eparsons]
ack next
13:25:20 [phila]
ack me
13:26:25 [phila]
phila: Takes an action to check the tracker config to start e-mails being sent when new issues are raised.
13:26:43 [phila]
eparsons: So let's think in terms of a moritorium on issues betwene now and FPWD
13:26:47 [eparsons]
PROPOSED : Move the UCR document to First Public Working Draft
13:26:47 [phila]
eparsons: Any more issues?
13:27:44 [phila]
Frans: Thinking about what's next... the fact that the UCR isn't finished, shouldn't stop the next thing being worked on
13:27:46 [phila]
eparsons: No
13:27:47 [phila]
PROPOSED : Move the UCR document to First Public Working Draft, subject to issues in tracker being linked
13:27:57 [jtandy]
+1 subject to caveat that ISSUES in the tracker are represented in the UCR doc prior to its FPWD publication ... UCR doc is _good enough_ for FPWD
13:27:59 [eparsons]
13:28:02 [Linda]
13:28:03 [kerry]
13:28:03 [Rachel]
13:28:06 [phila]
13:28:06 [MattPerry]
13:28:07 [Frans]
13:28:16 [billroberts]
13:28:17 [stlemme]
13:28:20 [kerry]
13:28:20 [SimonCox]
13:28:23 [ChrisLittle]
13:28:38 [eparsons]
ack next
13:28:45 [phila]
RESOLVED: Move the UCR document to First Public Working Draft, subject to issues in tracker being linked
13:28:46 [LarsG]
13:28:51 [cperey]
13:29:00 [ahaller2]
13:29:10 [IanHolt]
13:29:47 [SimonCox]
(and actual publication subject to OGC mechanics too)
13:29:53 [Alejandro_Llaves]
13:30:07 [kerry]
13:30:12 [phila]
eparsons: Thanks to everyone, especially the editors
13:30:14 [eparsons]
ack next
13:30:30 [phila]
kerry: I was thought it might be time to propose a formal vote of thanks to our editors
13:30:36 [ChrisLittle]
13:30:38 [jtandy]
13:30:39 [SimonCox]
sound of hands clapping
13:30:41 [phila]
PROPOSED: Thanks to Frans and Alejandro
13:30:44 [eparsons]
13:30:44 [LarsG]
13:30:46 [kerry]
13:30:46 [Rachel]
13:30:47 [stlemme]
13:30:48 [IanHolt]
13:30:48 [billroberts]
13:30:50 [ahaller2]
13:30:50 [MattPerry]
+1 Thanks to Frans and Alejandro
13:30:50 [Linda]
13:30:51 [phila]
13:30:54 [phila]
RESOLVED: Thanks to Frans and Alejandro
13:31:17 [phila]
topic: OGC Publication Process Synchronising
13:31:26 [phila]
eparsons: How do we take this forward in OGC.
13:31:35 [phila]
... There is not complete overlap between the two SDOs
13:31:49 [phila]
... there is no equivalent in OGC to a W3C FPWD
13:31:58 [SimonCox]
Or 'Discussion Paper'
13:32:08 [phila]
... I think an Engineering Report is the closest thing OGC has
13:32:17 [jtandy]
thinks that this is not an engineering report- there's no engineering!
13:32:27 [phila]
... The chairs put it in a pending folder and asks for a vote that lasts >= 3 weeks
13:32:34 [phila]
... If no objection, it moves to published
13:32:44 [SimonCox]
DP = early technology
13:32:53 [phila]
eparsons: maybe discussion paper is better, but this is quite a tech document
13:32:54 [SimonCox]
Eng Report = result of testbed
13:33:01 [Frans]
A white paper?
13:33:13 [jtandy]
13:33:24 [phila]
eparsons: We'll talk with OGC colleagues here in Boulder to decide but is that 3 week window OK for everyone?
13:33:26 [SimonCox]
Neither is a formal 'OGC position' - essentially "FYI"
13:33:28 [eparsons]
ack next
13:33:33 [phila]
q+ to ask about syncing or not
13:33:49 [phila]
jtandy: It's important that people in OGC world know that this is in no way finished
13:34:01 [phila]
... Typically, the 3 week process at OGC means the doc is finished?
13:34:04 [SimonCox]
13:34:11 [phila]
... We need to convey that it's open to change
13:34:13 [Linda]
Agrees with Simon - sounds most like a discussion paper
13:34:14 [eparsons]
ack next
13:34:15 [Zakim]
phila, you wanted to ask about syncing or not
13:34:23 [phila]
eparsons: The alternative is not to publish at OGC until it's finished
13:34:49 [phila]
SimonCox: The status of Eng Rep or Discussion, are both FYI, not an endorsed product, That's well understood within the OGC
13:35:03 [phila]
... They're choosing to publish because they think it's of interest to the community but no more.
13:35:09 [phila]
eparsons: So what's your suggestion?
13:35:37 [phila]
SimonCox: I'm not sure that the process outlined is entirely correct.
13:35:52 [jtandy]
q+ to ask if the introduction section of the OGC doc can include a statement about FPWD?
13:36:00 [phila]
... In the case of docs that are not formal positions of OGC, it can be informal, maybe just a show of hands at a TC plenary.
13:36:16 [phila]
... We could perhaps have had that if the doc had been available 3 weeks ago.
13:36:28 [phila]
... but it'll be a bit more cumbersome.
13:36:47 [phila]
eparsons: My suggestion was that the GeoSemantics DWG could organise the vote?
13:37:05 [phila]
SimonCox: I'll look into the details of that. We may need a formal resolution of that group this week.
13:37:20 [kerry]
13:37:26 [eparsons]
ack next
13:37:29 [phila]
SimonCox: The OGC approach in general is that no doc goes forward if it hasn't been availabnle to the relevant part of the OGC community for at least 3 weeks
13:37:33 [eparsons]
ack next
13:37:34 [Zakim]
jtandy, you wanted to ask if the introduction section of the OGC doc can include a statement about FPWD?
13:37:38 [phila]
... I'll help check the details today.
13:38:04 [phila]
jtandy: I wanted to suggest... I'm happy with a discussion doc going through the 3 week rule. Maybe we can include a cover sheet on that to explain what an FPWD is
13:38:09 [phila]
eparsons: Yes, we should.
13:38:22 [phila]
SimonCox: Isn't that form of words included in the doc?
13:38:30 [Rachel]
13:38:49 [eparsons]
ack next
13:38:50 [phila]
jtandy: Yes, but it will be unfamiliar to OGC folks so a bit mopre explanation of how to get involved etc. might be useful.
13:39:00 [jtandy]
13:39:21 [phila]
kerry: Just a tech question... you mentioned having a vote in the geoSemantics - haven't we effectively just done that?
13:39:50 [phila]
SimonCox: This is a sub group, not the full group. I'd be reluctant to take that short cut.
13:40:03 [phila]
eparsons: We've doubled the process, not halved it, but doing things together.
13:40:32 [Alejandro_Llaves]
13:40:35 [phila]
Action: eparsons to talk to other memebers of the OGC GeoSemantics DWG about this and try and take this forward as rapidly as possible.
13:40:35 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-49 - Talk to other memebers of the ogc geosemantics dwg about this and try and take this forward as rapidly as possible. [on Ed Parsons - due 2015-06-10].
13:40:50 [jtandy]
13:40:51 [jtandy]
13:40:53 [phila]
eparsons: That means we don't go gthrough the W3C process until we've been through the OGC process?
13:40:54 [kerry]
13:40:55 [phila]
13:40:57 [Alejandro_Llaves]
13:41:01 [eparsons]
ack next
13:41:02 [Linda]
13:41:04 [phila]
General Agreement
13:41:08 [Rachel]
13:41:09 [IanHolt]
13:41:17 [ChrisLittle]
13:41:19 [SimonCox]
13:41:21 [phila]
Alejandro_Llaves: Do we have a template to add to the document?
13:41:30 [jtandy]
13:41:32 [phila]
(Simon points to it)
13:41:34 [eparsons]
ack next
13:41:55 [phila]
jtandy: Presumably the OGC publication is a PDF doc, not a Web page
13:42:20 [phila]
SimonCox: All new docs at OGC are now published as HTML pages
13:42:32 [phila]
jtandy: So can we take our HTML doc and push it into the OGC template?
13:42:40 [Frans]
There already is a (standard) paragraph ¨Status of This Document¨
13:42:41 [phila]
SimonCox: I don't think that's appropriate, we can leave it as it is.
13:43:03 [phila]
eparsons: So maybe we just add a paragraph to the document
13:43:06 [phila]
13:43:18 [Rachel]
s/doubled the process/doubled the democratic process/
13:43:18 [eparsons]
ack next
13:43:44 [SimonCox]
From OGC P&P:"The votes that may occur at a DWG are: Move to release an Engineering Report as a Discussion Paper"
13:44:04 [SimonCox]
"All of these motions and DWG are recommendations to the full TC."
13:45:10 [phila]
phila: Can we predict a date (Tues or Thurs) for publication?
13:45:25 [phila]
SimonCox: We may know by the end of the day
13:46:01 [phila]
SimonCox: I've been looking at the OGC policies. And I think it means that the 3 week rule applies if no one objects?
13:46:21 [phila]
SimonCox: Ed and I will talk to Scott today
13:47:00 [phila]
action: Simon to work with Ed to come up with the wording to describe to the OGC community what FPWD means
13:47:00 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-50 - Work with ed to come up with the wording to describe to the ogc community what fpwd means [on Simon Cox - due 2015-06-10].
13:47:51 [ChrisLittle]
bye, sorry - have to go to another OGC WG, requiring spatial transfer
13:48:10 [phila]
eparsons: Let's close this off then...
13:48:27 [phila]
Topic: Next Steps - the Best Practice Document
13:48:44 [phila]
eparsons: The BP doc is going to be the biggest thing we focus on for the remaindxer of the year
13:49:12 [phila]
... We want to look at current activities as being the best/easiest way to make spatial data available on the Web in a form that is Linked/Linkable
13:49:22 [Alejandro_Llaves]
+ 1
13:49:23 [phila]
... We are satill looking for editors.
13:49:48 [jtandy]
13:49:56 [phila]
eparsons: The UCR describes the problem space and the BP doc is a large part of the solution.
13:50:16 [phila]
... We are looking for editors. Speak now or contact me, Phil or Kerry
13:50:51 [phila]
Frans: I'm trying to look - I think we had a partial volunteer. Someone who said they'd look at an overview of current software. It's somehwre in an e-mail
13:51:30 [kerry]
13:51:35 [eparsons]
ack next
13:51:42 [phila]
eparsons: Please think about that and volunteer if you can. Or we'll start knocking on your door.
13:51:50 [phila]
kerry: I wanted to point to issue-6
13:51:52 [phila]
13:51:52 [trackbot]
issue-6 -- That our primary goal is to develop 5 star linked spatial data -- raised
13:51:52 [trackbot]
13:52:22 [phila]
kerry: I think this raises an important point. It was raised as a principles doscussion. Can we discuss it now or soon?
13:52:33 [jtandy]
13:52:37 [Frans]
13:52:38 [phila]
kerry: I would vote in favour, but I'm not sure that everyone would.
13:52:45 [jtandy]
(we will need to bottom this out ... )
13:53:02 [eparsons]
ack next
13:53:03 [phila]
eparsons: I agree that, yes, we need to discuss that and see what the BP doc is going to achieve, how to frame it etc.
13:53:12 [phila]
kerry: I think that's a particularly critical one.
13:53:40 [phila]
Frans: I'm looking at the charter now. It says the WG will promote LD using the 5 star paradigm, but will not exclude other methods.
13:54:12 [phila]
eparsons: Let's park that for today but it could be on next week's agenda.
13:54:18 [Alejandro_Llaves]
13:54:22 [phila]
eparsons: Any final questions or are we done?
13:54:23 [eparsons]
ack next
13:54:27 [jtandy]
q+ to say thanks to Frans & Alejandro_Llaves
13:54:47 [Rachel]
[the email was from Lewis McGibbney, he offered to lead/co-lead a review and understanding of existing spatial markup vocabularies.]
13:54:48 [phila]
Alejandro_Llaves: We editors have the task of adding the issues ot the doc in the next days. There are some issues related directkly to requirements, others are not.
13:54:54 [Frans]
13:54:55 [kerry]
leave them out!
13:55:01 [phila]
What about issues that are not related like the one Kerry raised?
13:55:04 [eparsons]
ack next
13:55:05 [Zakim]
jtandy, you wanted to say thanks to Frans & Alejandro_Llaves
13:55:08 [jtandy]
13:55:08 [phila]
eparsons: Leave them out.
13:55:23 [eparsons]
ack next
13:55:25 [phila]
jtandy: I just wanted to thank Frans and Alejandro
13:55:42 [phila]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:55:42 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate phila
13:56:07 [cperey]
excellent work everyone!
13:56:20 [cperey]
thank you!
13:56:28 [phila]
eparsons: Wraps up the meeting.
13:56:43 [phila]
... Next week we start movng forward on the BP doc
13:56:48 [Alejandro_Llaves]
thanks to all! Bye
13:56:52 [Linda]
thanks bu
13:56:53 [eparsons]
13:56:54 [MattPerry]
13:56:56 [Rachel]
bye, thank all
13:56:57 [Linda]
13:57:03 [billroberts]
bye, thanks
13:57:32 [phila]
regrets+ Josh Lieberman
13:57:44 [kerry]
regrets + antoine
13:57:51 [kerry]
regrets+ antoine
13:57:57 [kerry]
regrets+ andrea
13:58:08 [kerry]
regrets+ phillipe
13:58:23 [phila]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
13:58:23 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate phila
14:47:38 [eparsons]
eparsons has joined #sdw
15:56:16 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #sdw