12:28:35 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sdw
12:28:35 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/06/24-sdw-irc
12:28:37 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
12:28:37 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sdw
12:28:39 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SDW
12:28:39 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
12:28:40 <trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
12:28:40 <trackbot> Date: 24 June 2015
12:28:50 <phila> Chair: Kerry
12:29:08 <phila> regrets+ Andreas H., Rachel Heaven, Clemens Portele, Bill Roberts, Jeremy Tandy, Philippe Thiran, Chaals, Simon Cox, Cory Henson
12:33:03 <phila> I'll find it. And I'll add it to the wiki - no reason to keep it secret
12:34:13 <phila> I think the host key is 870267
12:36:28 <Kerry> regrets+ Chaals
12:37:22 <Kerry> yes, saw that, thks
12:37:35 <Kerry> chaals regret just arrived in email now
12:50:58 <phila> regrets+ Josh
12:53:10 <Kerry> present+ kerry
12:55:49 <eparsons> eparsons has joined #sdw
12:56:39 <Frans> Frans has joined #sdw
12:58:06 <Linda> Linda has joined #sdw
12:58:19 <phila> present+ PhilA (IRC only)
12:58:22 <eparsons> Having probs with webex will get there
12:58:24 <LarsG> LarsG has joined #sdw
12:58:33 <LarsG> present+ LarsG
12:59:20 <Frans> present+ Frans
12:59:40 <Linda> present+
12:59:44 <Linda> present+ Linda
13:01:06 <Alejandro_Llaves> Alejandro_Llaves has joined #sdw
13:01:34 <MattPerry> MattPerry has joined #sdw
13:01:48 <Alejandro_Llaves> present+ Alejandro_Llaves
13:02:23 <AndreaPerego> AndreaPerego has joined #sdw
13:02:53 <Kerry> lets begin
13:03:30 <MattPerry> present+ MattPerry
13:04:44 <eparsons> eparsons has joined #sdw
13:04:58 <Kerry> scribe+ mattperry
13:05:20 <ChrisLittle> ChrisLittle has joined #sdw
13:05:24 <Kerry> scribe: mattperry
13:05:29 <MattPerry> scribenick MattPerry
13:06:10 <MattPerry> topic: approve last week's minutes
13:06:20 <Frans> +1
13:06:28 <ChrisLittle> +1
13:06:29 <Kerry> http://www.w3.org/2015/06/17-sdw-minutes.html
13:06:35 <Linda> +1
13:06:37 <Kerry> +1
13:06:40 <LarsG> +1
13:06:42 <MattPerry> proposed: approve last week's minutes
13:06:43 <MattPerry> +1
13:06:44 <Kerry> +1
13:06:45 <Alejandro_Llaves> +1
13:06:53 <MattPerry> resolved: approve last week's minutes
13:07:03 <MattPerry> topic: patent call
13:08:17 <MattPerry> topic: use case issues
13:08:26 <Kerry> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/10
13:08:40 <MattPerry> Frans: Issue was mentioned in the agenda
13:08:46 <Kerry> q?
13:08:50 <MattPerry> ... about CRS requirements
13:08:59 <Kerry> q?
13:09:04 <MattPerry> ... CRS needs to have a URI
13:09:35 <Kerry> q+
13:09:56 <MattPerry> ... there should be a standard about CRS, which includes non-geographic CRS too
13:09:56 <Frans> current CRS req proposal: "There should be a standard for publishing data about coordinate reference systems (CRS). It should be applicable to any 2D or 3D CRS, not only geographical reference systems. CRS descriptions should be referencable by HTTP URIs."
13:10:09 <ChrisLittle> Does CRS Description mean machinable?
13:10:15 <BartvanLeeuwen> BartvanLeeuwen has joined #sdw
13:10:25 <MattPerry> Frans: there has been plenty of disucssion on the email list
13:10:41 <Kerry> q?
13:11:01 <MattPerry> ChrisLittle: did you intend human readable or machine processable
13:11:05 <MattPerry> Frans: both
13:11:16 <AndreaPerego> present+ AndreaPerego
13:11:39 <MattPerry> Frans: if we are talking about data on the web, the intended consumer is both humans and machines. Maybe this should be clearer
13:11:41 <Kerry> ack kerry
13:12:07 <MattPerry> Kerry: I like the way the requirement is phrased and I would support it as is
13:12:13 <Alejandro_Llaves> q+
13:12:45 <BartvanLeeuwen> present+ BartvanLeeuwen
13:12:55 <MattPerry> Kerry: I think it would be a mistake to rush to machine processable.
13:13:09 <MattPerry> ... I think CRS should be explicit not depend on a default
13:13:33 <MattPerry> Kerry: I would reject a requirement for a default
13:13:40 <ChrisLittle> q+
13:14:00 <MattPerry> Frans: a default CRS is a separate requirement. We should raise an issue for this requirement
13:14:02 <Kerry> q?
13:14:03 <MattPerry> Kerry: agreed
13:14:20 <Kerry> ack alej
13:14:47 <eparsons> Sorry.. took a while to get online
13:14:55 <eparsons> present+ eparsons
13:15:17 <MattPerry> Alejandro_Llaves: Frans mentioned different requirements related to this issue. We may need to modify those requirements
13:15:46 <Kerry> ack chris
13:16:12 <MattPerry> ChrisLittle: I agree with the wording of the CRS requirement, and I would support a default CRS
13:16:24 <eparsons> +1 to default CRS
13:16:26 <MattPerry> q+
13:16:30 <Alejandro_Llaves> +1
13:16:39 <Linda> +1 to default CRS
13:16:53 <eparsons> WGS84 is de facto default ?
13:17:13 <MattPerry> Kerry: default CRS is a separate issue
13:17:30 <Kerry> q?
13:17:43 <MattPerry> Frans: this is a separate requirement at the moment
13:17:51 <Kerry> ack mattperry
13:18:24 <Alejandro_Llaves> I was also asking about the phrasing of the requirement. When a requirement ask for a "standard for publishing data...", does it mean a standard way of publishing data or a standard specification for publishing data?
13:18:28 <Kerry> Issue: that a default crs is a requirement
13:18:28 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-28 - That a default crs is a requirement.  Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/28/edit>.
13:18:39 <ChrisLittle> +1
13:18:40 <MattPerry> For the record, +1 for default CRS as WGS84 long-lat
13:19:16 <Kerry> q?
13:19:23 <Alejandro_Llaves> +q
13:19:34 <Kerry> ack allejandro
13:19:53 <Alejandro_Llaves> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#SpatialMetadata
13:20:08 <MattPerry> Alejandro_Llaves: Frans proposes to add new requirement to best practices deliverable on Spatial Metadata
13:20:36 <MattPerry> Frans: I think we should link these requirements
13:21:00 <Kerry> q?
13:21:02 <MattPerry> ... Spatial Metadata requirement says we should include CRS info, CRS requirement says how to do it
13:21:43 <AndreaPerego> q+
13:22:01 <MattPerry> Frans: we can add a note to the Spatial Metadata requirement to other relevant requirements
13:22:17 <MattPerry> Alejandro_Llaves: sounds good to me
13:22:51 <AndreaPerego> q+ to ask what we mean with "standard" - e.g., is it format-related?
13:22:56 <MattPerry> Frans: maybe we should move discussion to the email list
13:23:28 <MattPerry> Kerry: It would be nice to conclude this discussion today
13:23:48 <phila> regrets+ Antoine Zimmermann
13:24:01 <MattPerry> Frans: the word standard appears in many requirements, this is a broader issue
13:24:16 <eparsons> +1
13:24:18 <Kerry> ack andrea
13:24:18 <Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to ask what we mean with "standard" - e.g., is it format-related?
13:24:20 <LarsG> +1
13:24:42 <MattPerry> Alejandro_Llaves: what I see in the tracker is best "phrasing" for CRS requirements
13:25:35 <MattPerry> AndreaPerego: My question is general. Are we saying we need an RDF standard way to represent information. We already have many standard ways to represent CRS info
13:25:43 <eparsons> q+
13:26:03 <Frans> q+
13:26:10 <MattPerry> Kerry: I agree about that confusion. My take is to say "a way" to publish info on CRS
13:26:19 <Alejandro_Llaves> +1
13:26:36 <MattPerry> ... and this should include HTTP URIs, RDF is not critical
13:27:19 <MattPerry> ... We need to indentify the CRS, but not really how to describe it
13:28:18 <MattPerry> AndreaPerego: I think that HTTP URI is key. The thing that is important is ability to retrieve the CRS description in the format you want.
13:28:46 <MattPerry> ... what is missing is that some applications may need an RDF representation
13:28:56 <MattPerry> ... if there is not one, maybe we should define it
13:29:40 <eparsons> q?
13:29:55 <MattPerry> Frans: the current phrasing doesn't say exactly what needs to be expressed
13:30:12 <MattPerry> ... want to get back to the use of the word standard
13:30:23 <MattPerry> ... how about there should be a "best practice"?
13:30:49 <Kerry> +1 to best practice
13:30:51 <MattPerry> Frans: best practice implies one preferred way
13:31:01 <ChrisLittle> +1 to best practice
13:31:03 <AndreaPerego> Just to note that we have already examples of CRS description in multiple formats - e.g., see http://spatialreference.org/ref/epsg/wgs-84/ and http://epsg.io/4326
13:31:13 <MattPerry> +1 to best practice
13:31:21 <Linda> +1
13:31:22 <AndreaPerego> +1 to BP
13:31:31 <Kerry> q?
13:31:33 <LarsG> +1 to best practice
13:32:05 <MattPerry> eparsons: I agree with Frans' point. Requirements are just identifying the problems, not providing a solution. That is for best practice deliverable.
13:32:11 <Kerry> ack alle
13:32:20 <eparsons> q-
13:32:45 <MattPerry> Alejandro_Llaves: I totally agree with Ed
13:32:55 <Frans> Agree with Ed: we need so separate requirements and possible solutions
13:33:02 <MattPerry> ... solution does not belong in the requirement
13:33:24 <Kerry> ack frans
13:33:37 <MattPerry> ... I would avoid mentioning "standard" or "Best practice" in the requirement
13:34:13 <ChrisLittle> "Data should be published ..."
13:34:50 <MattPerry> Kerry: I like Chris' wording
13:35:00 <Kerry> +1 to Chris
13:35:43 <MattPerry> Frans: this changes the meaning of the requirement: you are wrong if you do not publish it
13:35:46 <ChrisLittle> s/should/must/
13:36:04 <Kerry> q?
13:36:28 <MattPerry> eparsons: maybe we're saying it should be a default or point to a definition?
13:37:00 <MattPerry> eparsons: I'm strongly behind it should be default or something else
13:37:03 <Kerry> q?
13:37:07 <Kerry> q?
13:37:14 <Frans> q+
13:37:21 <Kerry> ack allejando
13:37:29 <Kerry> ack frans
13:37:38 <Linda> q+
13:37:39 <MattPerry> Frans: I can live with "a way"
13:37:46 <AndreaPerego> ack Alejandro_Llaves
13:38:05 <MattPerry> Kerry: that suits me
13:38:06 <Kerry> ack linda
13:38:22 <MattPerry> Linda: I don't really like "a way"
13:38:35 <MattPerry> q+
13:39:06 <MattPerry> MattPerry: I agree with Linda
13:39:11 <Linda> "a recommended way"?
13:39:14 <MattPerry> ChrisLittle: "a way" is a bit too sloppy
13:39:25 <Kerry> q?
13:39:42 <MattPerry> ChrisLittle: "best practice" or "should be published"
13:39:51 <MattPerry> ack me
13:40:09 <Alejandro_Llaves> "Spatial metadata shall include CRS metadata"
13:40:19 <Frans> I think the should is not being questioned
13:40:37 <ChrisLittle> +
13:40:40 <ChrisLittle> 1 alej
13:40:43 <eparsons> +1 should
13:40:48 <BartvanLeeuwen> q+
13:40:50 <Kerry> q?
13:41:04 <MattPerry> ChrisLittle: lets stick with "should"
13:41:15 <LarsG> "shall" is too strong (equal to "must") -> "should"
13:41:32 <MattPerry> BartvanLeeuwen: can we have a written out proposal so we can see the whould thing
13:41:44 <MattPerry> s/whould/whole
13:41:49 <Kerry> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/10
13:42:23 <Frans> I would propose: "There should be a best practice for publishing data about coordinate reference systems (CRS). It should be applicable to any 2D or 3D CRS, not only geographical reference systems. CRS descriptions should be referencable by HTTP URIs."
13:43:50 <MattPerry> Alejandro_Llaves: "best practice" could be considered a solution. This is about requirements.
13:44:19 <MattPerry> ... I can live with "best practice" though
13:44:41 <MattPerry> eparsons: I agree. Can we just change the "shall" to "should"?
13:46:38 <LarsG> q+
13:46:41 <MattPerry> eparsons: my concern is that Frans' propsal is already solving the problem
13:46:46 <BartvanLeeuwen> ack me
13:47:00 <Frans> q+
13:47:00 <Kerry> q?
13:47:08 <ChrisLittle> bacak to "Data should be published about ..."
13:47:09 <Kerry> ac lars
13:47:20 <Kerry> ack lars
13:47:36 <Linda> +1 Ed, i.e. the requirement is to be able to reference a CRS with a URI, and to get useful information about the CRS when you dereference that URI.
13:47:54 <MattPerry> LarsG: I see Ed's point. If we have coordinates, we need to know what they mean, so we need to link to the CRS.
13:48:08 <AndreaPerego> +1 to Ed also from me
13:48:41 <MattPerry> Kerry: I don't think Frans' proposal is a solution
13:48:54 <Kerry> ack frans
13:49:05 <Alejandro_Llaves> Proposal: "Spatial metadata should include coordinate reference system (CRS) metadata. It should be applicable to any 2D or 3D CRS, not only geographical reference systems. CRS descriptions should be referencable by HTTP URIs."
13:49:08 <MattPerry> eparsons: one solution could be a default. Frans' proposal implies too much of a solution
13:49:55 <Kerry> ack frans
13:50:08 <MattPerry> Kerry: whether or not we have a default, we need to refer to a CRS
13:50:56 <Alejandro_Llaves> Spatial data*, sorry!
13:50:58 <MattPerry> Kerry: I'm happy with Alejandro_Llaves' propsal as well
13:51:16 <MattPerry> Kerry: does anyone disagree with that one?
13:51:33 <MattPerry> eparsons: it sill sounds like a solution
13:51:45 <Kerry> q?
13:51:48 <AndreaPerego> s/it sill/it still/
13:51:57 <MattPerry> Kerry: I disagree ed
13:52:19 <MattPerry> ... implicit or explicit is a separate point
13:53:28 <MattPerry> eparsons: We do need to solve the implicit / explicit issue
13:53:57 <MattPerry> Kerry: we do, but that is a separate issue
13:54:16 <LarsG> Proposal (piggybacking on Alejandro): "Spatial data must contain a reference to the CRS used. [...]"
13:54:17 <MattPerry> Kerry: let's put this to a vote
13:54:57 <MattPerry> LarsG: This one doesn't say if it's implicit or explicit
13:55:18 <Alejandro_Llaves> I'm happy with Lars' proposal
13:56:04 <ChrisLittle> +1 Frans
13:56:20 <Frans> "There should be a best practice for publishing data about coordinate reference systems (CRS). It should be applicable to any 2D or 3D CRS, not only geographical reference systems. CRS descriptions should be referencable by HTTP URIs."
13:56:26 <Kerry> +1
13:57:00 <Kerry> q?
13:57:05 <Frans> How can we improve recording?
13:57:12 <MattPerry> BartvanLeeuwen: I have an issue that this doesn't refer to the data
13:57:16 <Frans> Thanks Bart
13:57:24 <Frans> PROPOSED: "There should be a best practice for publishing data about coordinate reference systems (CRS). It should be applicable to any 2D or 3D CRS, not only geographical reference systems. CRS descriptions should be referencable by HTTP URIs."
13:57:35 <Kerry> +1
13:58:24 <MattPerry> Kerry: I think we're going to have to give up on this one
13:58:33 <ChrisLittle> open issue
13:58:39 <MattPerry> Issue 10 is not RESOLVED
13:58:55 <phila> rrsagent, draft minutes
13:58:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/06/24-sdw-minutes.html phila
13:59:19 <phila> trackbot, open issue-10
13:59:19 <trackbot> Sorry, phila, I don't understand 'trackbot, open issue-10'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
13:59:35 <Kerry> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Notes_for_Context
14:00:10 <MattPerry> Kerry: please have a look at this link, which shows info about best practices document
14:00:22 <ChrisLittle> bye and thanks
14:00:24 <LarsG> Thanks Kerry
14:00:25 <BartvanLeeuwen> thx kerry
14:00:27 <Alejandro_Llaves> thanks, bye!
14:00:29 <AndreaPerego> Thanks, bye!
14:00:29 <ChrisLittle> ChrisLittle has left #sdw
14:00:29 <BartvanLeeuwen> and frans
14:00:31 <MattPerry> bye
14:00:36 <eparsons> bye !
14:01:05 <phila> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:01:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/06/24-sdw-minutes.html phila
14:01:10 <Kerry> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:01:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/06/24-sdw-minutes.html Kerry
15:58:26 <phila> zakim, bye
15:58:26 <Zakim> Zakim has left #sdw
15:58:32 <phila> RRSAgent, bye
15:58:32 <RRSAgent> I see no action items