<trackbot> Date: 24 June 2015

<phila> I'll find it. And I'll add it to the wiki - no reason to keep it secret

<phila> I think the host key is 870267

<Kerry> yes, saw that, thks

<Kerry> chaals regret just arrived in email now

<eparsons> Having probs with webex will get there

<Kerry> lets begin

<Kerry> scribe+ mattperry

<Kerry> scribe: mattperry

scribenick MattPerry

approve last week's minutes

<Frans> +1

<ChrisLittle> +1

<Kerry> http://www.w3.org/2015/06/17-sdw-minutes.html

<Linda> +1

<Kerry> +1

<LarsG> +1

proposed: approve last week's minutes

+1

<Kerry> +1

<Alejandro_Llaves> +1

resolved: approve last week's minutes

patent call

use case issues

<Kerry> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/10

Frans: Issue was mentioned in the agenda
... about CRS requirements
... CRS needs to have a URI
... there should be a standard about CRS, which includes non-geographic CRS too

<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."

<ChrisLittle> Does CRS Description mean machinable?

Frans: there has been plenty of disucssion on the email list

ChrisLittle: did you intend human readable or machine processable

Frans: both
... if we are talking about data on the web, the intended consumer is both humans and machines. Maybe this should be clearer

Kerry: I like the way the requirement is phrased and I would support it as is
... I think it would be a mistake to rush to machine processable.
... I think CRS should be explicit not depend on a default
... I would reject a requirement for a default

Frans: a default CRS is a separate requirement. We should raise an issue for this requirement

Kerry: agreed

<eparsons> Sorry.. took a while to get online

Alejandro_Llaves: Frans mentioned different requirements related to this issue. We may need to modify those requirements

ChrisLittle: I agree with the wording of the CRS requirement, and I would support a default CRS

<eparsons> +1 to default CRS

<Alejandro_Llaves> +1

<Linda> +1 to default CRS

<eparsons> WGS84 is de facto default ?

Kerry: default CRS is a separate issue

Frans: this is a separate requirement at the moment

<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?

<Kerry> Issue: that a default crs is a requirement

<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>.

<ChrisLittle> +1

For the record, +1 for default CRS as WGS84 long-lat

<Alejandro_Llaves> +q

<Alejandro_Llaves> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#SpatialMetadata

Alejandro_Llaves: Frans proposes to add new requirement to best practices deliverable on Spatial Metadata

Frans: I think we should link these requirements
... Spatial Metadata requirement says we should include CRS info, CRS requirement says how to do it
... we can add a note to the Spatial Metadata requirement to other relevant requirements

Alejandro_Llaves: sounds good to me

Frans: maybe we should move discussion to the email list

Kerry: It would be nice to conclude this discussion today

Frans: the word standard appears in many requirements, this is a broader issue

<eparsons> +1

<Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to ask what we mean with "standard" - e.g., is it format-related?

<LarsG> +1

Alejandro_Llaves: what I see in the tracker is best "phrasing" for CRS requirements

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

Kerry: I agree about that confusion. My take is to say "a way" to publish info on CRS

<Alejandro_Llaves> +1

Kerry: and this should include HTTP URIs, RDF is not critical
... We need to indentify the CRS, but not really how to describe it

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.
... what is missing is that some applications may need an RDF representation
... if there is not one, maybe we should define it

Frans: the current phrasing doesn't say exactly what needs to be expressed
... want to get back to the use of the word standard
... how about there should be a "best practice"?

<Kerry> +1 to best practice

Frans: best practice implies one preferred way

<ChrisLittle> +1 to best practice

<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

+1 to best practice

<Linda> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1 to BP

<LarsG> +1 to best practice

eparsons: I agree with Frans' point. Requirements are just identifying the problems, not providing a solution. That is for best practice deliverable.

Alejandro_Llaves: I totally agree with Ed

<Frans> Agree with Ed: we need so separate requirements and possible solutions

Alejandro_Llaves: solution does not belong in the requirement
... I would avoid mentioning "standard" or "Best practice" in the requirement

<ChrisLittle> "Data must be published ..."

Kerry: I like Chris' wording

<Kerry> +1 to Chris

Frans: this changes the meaning of the requirement: you are wrong if you do not publish it

eparsons: maybe we're saying it should be a default or point to a definition?
... I'm strongly behind it should be default or something else

Frans: I can live with "a way"

Kerry: that suits me

Linda: I don't really like "a way"

MattPerry: I agree with Linda

<Linda> "a recommended way"?

ChrisLittle: "a way" is a bit too sloppy
... "best practice" or "should be published"

<Alejandro_Llaves> "Spatial metadata shall include CRS metadata"

<Frans> I think the should is not being questioned

<ChrisLittle> +

<ChrisLittle> 1 alej

<eparsons> +1 should

ChrisLittle: lets stick with "should"

<LarsG> "shall" is too strong (equal to "must") -> "should"

BartvanLeeuwen: can we have a written out proposal so we can see the whole thing

<Kerry> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/10

<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."

Alejandro_Llaves: "best practice" could be considered a solution. This is about requirements.
... I can live with "best practice" though

eparsons: I agree. Can we just change the "shall" to "should"?
... my concern is that Frans' propsal is already solving the problem

<ChrisLittle> bacak to "Data should be published about ..."

<Kerry> ac lars

<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.

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.

<AndreaPerego> +1 to Ed also from me

Kerry: I don't think Frans' proposal is a solution

<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."

eparsons: one solution could be a default. Frans' proposal implies too much of a solution

Kerry: whether or not we have a default, we need to refer to a CRS

<Alejandro_Llaves> Spatial data*, sorry!

Kerry: I'm happy with Alejandro_Llaves' propsal as well
... does anyone disagree with that one?

eparsons: it still sounds like a solution

Kerry: I disagree ed
... implicit or explicit is a separate point

eparsons: We do need to solve the implicit / explicit issue

Kerry: we do, but that is a separate issue

<LarsG> Proposal (piggybacking on Alejandro): "Spatial data must contain a reference to the CRS used. [...]"

Kerry: let's put this to a vote

LarsG: This one doesn't say if it's implicit or explicit

<Alejandro_Llaves> I'm happy with Lars' proposal

<ChrisLittle> +1 Frans

<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."

<Kerry> +1

<Frans> How can we improve recording?

BartvanLeeuwen: I have an issue that this doesn't refer to the data

<Frans> Thanks Bart

<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."

<Kerry> +1

Kerry: I think we're going to have to give up on this one

<ChrisLittle> open issue

Issue 10 is not RESOLVED

<phila> trackbot, open issue-10

<trackbot> Sorry, phila, I don't understand 'trackbot, open issue-10'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.

<Kerry> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Notes_for_Context

Kerry: please have a look at this link, which shows info about best practices document

<ChrisLittle> bye and thanks

<LarsG> Thanks Kerry

<BartvanLeeuwen> thx kerry

<Alejandro_Llaves> thanks, bye!

<AndreaPerego> Thanks, bye!

<BartvanLeeuwen> and frans

bye

<eparsons> bye !

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140  of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/should/must/
Succeeded: s/whould/whole/
Succeeded: s/it sill/it still/
Found Scribe: mattperry
Inferring ScribeNick: MattPerry
Present: kerry PhilA (IRC only) LarsG Frans Linda Alejandro_Llaves MattPerry AndreaPerego BartvanLeeuwen eparsons
Regrets: Andreas_H. Rachel_Heaven Clemens_Portele Bill_Roberts Jeremy_Tandy Philippe_Thiran Chaals Simon_Cox Cory_Henson Josh Antoine Zimmermann
Found Date: 24 Jun 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/06/24-sdw-minutes.html
People with action items: