See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 03 June 2015
<eparsons> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 03 June 2015
Meeting URL is at https://mit.webex.com/mit/e.php?MTID=mc00ef4269f70cf6d524a1eafc14142da
<Frans> Still working on audio...
<IanHolt> Trying to fix audio this end
<SimonCox> pathetic
<SimonCox> 4th floor
<scribe> scribe: phila
<scribe> scribeNick: phila
<SimonCox> I recall in the 1970s the Met Office tried to come up with a catchy little ditty to explain Celsius.
<SimonCox> 5, 10 and 21 - Winter Spring and Summer Sun (!)
ed: Recalls last week's minutes
eparsons: recalls the OGC Patent Call
<kerry> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jun/0003.html
PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes, such as they are, see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jun/0003.html
<jtandy> +1
<ChrisLittle> and even I was not at Met Office
<eparsons> +1
<kerry> +1
<billroberts> +1
+1
<Linda> +1
<MattPerry> +1
<ChrisLittle> +1 minutes
RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes, such as they are, see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jun/0003.html
eparsons: Main order of business today is progress with UCR. Next step is to make it a First Public Working Draft
-> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html Editor's draft
eparsons: It's a formal step. You
need to be happy with the doc as it stands. It's not final of
course
... we're saying to the world, here it is, come and take a look
and see how we're doing, how we're thinking
<ChrisLittle> +2 to Alejandro, Frans
<Alejandro_Llaves> Thanks! :)
<Linda> Yes very nice work Frans and Alejandro!
phila: Gives a bit more background
eparsons: Asks for any further points?
billroberts: Thanks Frans and
Alejandro
... I see an e-mail question Frans raised about spatial
relations etc.
... Frans had suggested a modified form of that
requirement
... I just wanted to know what the status of the editing
process is
... are there still things to be done or is the doc as it is
the version we're going to publish?
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"
Frans: This is an example of one
of the many issues to be resolved
... the UCR has a broad scope. There are many differnet
subjects and issues that need to be processed
... some subjects hairly, some simple
... but they haven't all be processed yet
... what i want to achieve is that we don't overlook anythiung
that still needs to be processed
... Alejandro_Llaves wanted to flag the remaining issues and
associate them in the UCR
... if there is time for that, that's a final thing we could do
before it reached FPWD status
<Alejandro_Llaves> +q
Frans: at least have some kind of
completeness - the idea that we have eveything in our
sights.
... For some of our reqs we haven't found the optimal phrasing
yet
jtandy: Before we move to FPWD, I
think we should definitely reference the issues in our
tracker
... It says "we know there's still some stuff outdstanding
here"
... so people don't ask us why we're not thinkinbg about
something that we are
<Linda> +1 to referencing issues
eparsons: So what concrete steps do we need to take?
<jtandy> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues
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
... I have a link that describes how to do that
eparsons: So this is a further steo for the editos do to over the coming days
<jtandy> see discussion in email thread https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jun/0033.html
Frans: I agree with that course
of action
... If we are meant to vote on the doc, do we still have time
to put those issues in?
phila: Yes
<Rachel> +1 to referencing issues within the UCR document
<kerry> +1 to caveat as discussed
Frans: That's nice, thanks
... It's easier for WG members to check if their issue in in
the tracker than if it is in the doc correctly
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!
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
... But we need to recognise the massive number of e-mails in
the last few weeks
... So we'll work on the cross linking
... I'm fine with voting today, accounting for still adding the
issues.
... but I would ask not to add new issues until we've done
that
... or there will never be an FPWD
eparsons: That seems fair
<Zakim> kerry, you wanted to speak on what about new issues from here on?
eparsons: Assuming we don't vote today, no new issues until tracker items have been integrated.
kerry: My comments was closely
related.
... What do we do about issues still in people's heads but not
in the tracker?
... I guess the answer is, keep them in your head and hold off
for now
... maybe we should announce the issue(s) we're going to work
on for each meeting
Linda: What about issues that were raised by e-mail but that are not yet in the tracker?
Frans: We'll put them in the
tracker
... and link from the UCR
... so that we can check for completeness.
Linda: So are you going to do that or should I do that for my issues?
Frans: Dunno if Alejandro_Llaves agrees, but the editors can make a start
<Alejandro_Llaves> +q
Frans: The editors should have a good overview of outstanding issues
Alejandro_Llaves: I'm fine with
that as a first procedure for now
... 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
... Otherwise we end up exhanging e-mails and they're not
tracked
phila: Takes an action to check the tracker config to start e-mails being sent when new issues are raised.
eparsons: So let's think in terms of a moritorium on issues betwene now and FPWD
<eparsons> PROPOSED : Move the UCR document to First Public Working Draft
eparsons: Any more issues?
Frans: Thinking about what's next... the fact that the UCR isn't finished, shouldn't stop the next thing being worked on
eparsons: No
PROPOSED: Move the UCR document to First Public Working Draft, subject to issues in tracker being linked
<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
<eparsons> +1
<Linda> +1
<kerry> +1
<Rachel> +1
+1
<MattPerry> +1
<Frans> +1
<billroberts> +1
<stlemme> +1
<SimonCox> +1
<ChrisLittle> +1
RESOLUTION: Move the UCR document to First Public Working Draft, subject to issues in tracker being linked
<LarsG> +1
<cperey> +1
<ahaller2> +1
<IanHolt> +1
<SimonCox> (and actual publication subject to OGC mechanics too)
<Alejandro_Llaves> +1
<kerry> +q
eparsons: Thanks to everyone, especially the editors
kerry: I was thought it might be time to propose a formal vote of thanks to our editors
<ChrisLittle> +1
<jtandy> +1
<SimonCox> sound of hands clapping
PROPOSED: Thanks to Frans and Alejandro
<eparsons> +1
<LarsG> +1
<kerry> +1
<Rachel> +1
<stlemme> +1
<IanHolt> +1
<billroberts> +1
<ahaller2> +1
<MattPerry> +1 Thanks to Frans and Alejandro
<Linda> +1
+1
RESOLUTION: Thanks to Frans and Alejandro
eparsons: How do we take this
forward in OGC.
... There is not complete overlap between the two SDOs
... there is no equivalent in OGC to a W3C FPWD
<SimonCox> Or 'Discussion Paper'
eparsons: I think an Engineering Report is the closest thing OGC has
<jtandy> thinks that this is not an engineering report- there's no engineering!
eparsons: The chairs put it in a
pending folder and asks for a vote that lasts >= 3
weeks
... If no objection, it moves to published
<SimonCox> DP = early technology
eparsons: maybe discussion paper is better, but this is quite a tech document
<SimonCox> Eng Report = result of testbed
<Frans> A white paper?
eparsons: We'll talk with OGC colleagues here in Boulder to decide but is that 3 week window OK for everyone?
<SimonCox> Neither is a formal 'OGC position' - essentially "FYI"
jtandy: It's important that
people in OGC world know that this is in no way finished
... Typically, the 3 week process at OGC means the doc is
finished?
... We need to convey that it's open to change
<Linda> Agrees with Simon - sounds most like a discussion paper
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask about syncing or not
eparsons: The alternative is not to publish at OGC until it's finished
SimonCox: The status of Eng Rep
or Discussion, are both FYI, not an endorsed product, That's
well understood within the OGC
... They're choosing to publish because they think it's of
interest to the community but no more.
eparsons: So what's your suggestion?
SimonCox: I'm not sure that the
process outlined is entirely correct.
... 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.
... We could perhaps have had that if the doc had been
available 3 weeks ago.
... but it'll be a bit more cumbersome.
eparsons: My suggestion was that the GeoSemantics DWG could organise the vote?
SimonCox: I'll look into the details of that. We may need a formal resolution of that group this week.
<kerry> +q
SimonCox: The OGC approach in general is that no doc goes forward if it hasn't been available to the relevant part of the OGC community for at least 3 weeks
<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask if the introduction section of the OGC doc can include a statement about FPWD?
SimonCox: I'll help check the details today.
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
eparsons: Yes, we should.
SimonCox: Isn't that form of words included in the doc?
jtandy: Yes, but it will be unfamiliar to OGC folks so a bit more explanation of how to get involved etc. might be useful.
kerry: Just a tech question... you mentioned having a vote in the geoSemantics - haven't we effectively just done that?
SimonCox: This is a sub group, not the full group. I'd be reluctant to take that short cut.
eparsons: We've doubled the democratic process, not halved it, but doing things together.
<Alejandro_Llaves> +q
<scribe> ACTION: eparsons to talk to other memebers of the OGC GeoSemantics DWG about this and try and take this forward as rapidly as possible. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/06/03-sdw-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-49 - Talk to other members of the ogc geosemantics dwg about this and try and take this forward as rapidly as possible. [on Ed Parsons - due 2015-06-10].
<jtandy> +1
eparsons: That means we don't go gthrough the W3C process until we've been through the OGC process?
<kerry> +1
<Alejandro_Llaves> +1
<Linda> +1
General Agreement
<Rachel> +1
<IanHolt> +1
<ChrisLittle> +1
<SimonCox> http://docs.opengeospatial.org/pol/05-020r20/05-020r20.html#24
Alejandro_Llaves: Do we have a template to add to the document?
(Simon points to it)
jtandy: Presumably the OGC publication is a PDF doc, not a Web page
SimonCox: All new docs at OGC are now published as HTML pages
jtandy: So can we take our HTML doc and push it into the OGC template?
<Frans> There already is a (standard) paragraph ¨Status of This Document¨
SimonCox: I don't think that's appropriate, we can leave it as it is.
eparsons: So maybe we just add a paragraph to the document
<SimonCox> From OGC P&P:"The votes that may occur at a DWG are: Move to release an Engineering Report as a Discussion Paper"
<SimonCox> "All of these motions and DWG are recommendations to the full TC."
phila: Can we predict a date (Tues or Thurs) for publication?
SimonCox: We may know by the end
of the day
... I've been looking at the OGC policies. And I think it means
that the 3 week rule applies if no one objects?
... Ed and I will talk to Scott today
<scribe> ACTION: Simon to work with Ed to come up with the wording to describe to the OGC community what FPWD means [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/06/03-sdw-minutes.html#action02]
<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].
<ChrisLittle> bye, sorry - have to go to another OGC WG, requiring spatial transfer
eparsons: Let's close this off then...
eparsons: The BP doc is going to
be the biggest thing we focus on for the remaindxer of the
year
... 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
<Alejandro_Llaves> + 1
eparsons: We are still looking
for editors.
... The UCR describes the problem space and the BP doc is a
large part of the solution.
... We are looking for editors. Speak now or contact me, Phil
or Kerry
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
<kerry> +q
eparsons: Please think about that and volunteer if you can. Or we'll start knocking on your door.
kerry: I wanted to point to issue-6
issue-6?
<trackbot> issue-6 -- That our primary goal is to develop 5 star linked spatial data -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/6
kerry: I think this raises an important point. It was raised as a principles doscussion. Can we discuss it now or soon?
<jtandy> +1
kerry: I would vote in favour, but I'm not sure that everyone would.
<jtandy> (we will need to bottom this out ... )
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.
kerry: I think that's a particularly critical one.
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.
eparsons: Let's park that for today but it could be on next week's agenda.
<Alejandro_Llaves> +q
eparsons: Any final questions or are we done?
<Rachel> [the email was from Lewis McGibbney, he offered to lead/co-lead a review and understanding of existing spatial markup vocabularies.]
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.
<kerry> leave them out!
What about issues that are not related like the one Kerry raised?
<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to say thanks to Frans & Alejandro_Llaves
eparsons: Leave them out.
jtandy: I just wanted to thank Frans and Alejandro
<cperey> excellent work everyone!
<cperey> thank you!
eparsons: Wraps up the
meeting.
... Next week we start movng forward on the BP doc
<Alejandro_Llaves> thanks to all! Bye
<Linda> thanks bu
<eparsons> bye
<MattPerry> bye
<Rachel> bye, thank all
<Linda> bye!
<billroberts> bye, thanks