IRC log of sdw on 2015-07-01

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:02:35 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sdw
13:02:35 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:02:35 [eparsons]
eparsons has joined #sdw
13:02:37 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
13:02:37 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #sdw
13:02:39 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SDW
13:02:39 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
13:02:40 [trackbot]
Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
13:02:40 [trackbot]
Date: 01 July 2015
13:03:13 [phila]
regrets+ Frans, Rachel Heaven, Chris Little, Bart van Leeuwen, Andrea Perego, Clemens Portele
13:03:17 [eparsons]
present+ eparsons
13:03:17 [phila]
Chair: Ed
13:03:23 [kerry]
kerry has joined #sdw
13:03:29 [jtandy]
present+ jtandy
13:03:30 [phila]
present+ MattPerry, Alejandro_Llaves
13:03:37 [phila]
presnet+ phila
13:03:39 [joshlieberman]
preent+ joshlieberman
13:03:39 [ahaller2]
ahaller2 has joined #sdw
13:03:47 [phila]
present+ joshlieberman
13:03:47 [joshlieberman]
present+ joshlieberman
13:04:08 [ahaller2]
present+ ahaller2
13:04:11 [kerry]
present+ kerry
13:04:27 [kerry]
regrets+ payam
13:04:31 [SimonCox]
present+ SimonCox
13:04:49 [phila]
scribe: joshlieberman
13:05:03 [ThiagoAvila]
ThiagoAvila has joined #sdw
13:05:42 [eparsons]
Topic: Approve Minutes
13:05:48 [eparsons]
13:05:55 [eparsons]
PROPOSED: Accept last weeks minutes
13:06:05 [eparsons]
13:06:12 [MattPerry]
13:06:13 [Alejandro_Llaves]
13:06:19 [LarsG]
LarsG has joined #sdw
13:06:26 [joshlieberman]
joshlieberman wasn't on the call
13:06:46 [kerry]
13:06:49 [eparsons]
RESOLVED: Accept last week's minutes
13:06:50 [SimonCox]
SimonCox not present
13:06:56 [eparsons]
Topic: Patent Call
13:07:03 [eparsons]
13:07:38 [eparsons]
Topic: Combined CRS Issues
13:07:47 [LarsG]
present+ LarsG
13:08:31 [eparsons]
1)The CRS Definition requirement currently in the UCR document should be rephrased. This is what ISSUE-10 is about. The proposal for new wording is "There should be a recommended way of referencing a CRS with a HTTP URI, and to get useful information about the CRS when that URI is dereferenced."
13:09:48 [jtandy]
13:09:57 [eparsons]
ack next
13:10:14 [SimonCox]
Do we need the word 'recommended'?
13:10:34 [joshlieberman]
jtandy: good to avoid parse-able URI
13:10:36 [phila]
phila: Notes that Frans' proposal was made at
13:10:46 [cory]
cory has joined #sdw
13:11:01 [SimonCox]
13:11:04 [SimonCox]
13:11:06 [joshlieberman]
SimonCox: we don't need the "recommended" part
13:11:07 [MattPerry]
13:11:14 [eparsons]
There should be a way of referencing a CRS with a HTTP URI, and to get useful information about the CRS when that URI is dereferenced."
13:11:17 [jtandy]
13:11:19 [eparsons]
ack next
13:11:21 [jtandy]
13:11:33 [joshlieberman]
13:11:37 [jtandy]
13:11:47 [eparsons]
ack next
13:12:31 [SimonCox]
There are multiple existing sources of CRS definitions. Most of them are good. Do we intend to single out one of them as 'recommended'?
13:12:38 [ThiagoAvila]
Hi for all.
13:12:44 [eparsons]
ack next
13:12:49 [phila]
q+ to show his ignorance
13:12:50 [joshlieberman]
MattPerry: there should be "one" way
13:13:31 [MattPerry]
I can live with removal of "recommended"
13:13:48 [Alejandro_Llaves]
Me too
13:14:14 [eparsons]
ack next
13:14:16 [Zakim]
phila, you wanted to show his ignorance
13:14:33 [SimonCox]
OGC does, but so do others
13:14:40 [Alejandro_Llaves]
13:14:40 [joshlieberman]
jtandy: phila: doesn't OGC provide CRS URL's
13:15:38 [eparsons]
ack next
13:15:55 [Rachel]
Rachel has joined #sdw
13:16:08 [joshlieberman]
phila: should requirement also include what the URI references?
13:16:13 [Rachel]
present+ Rachel
13:16:17 [IanHolt]
IanHolt has joined #sdw
13:16:26 [phila]
s/the URI references/the URI returns
13:16:38 [phila]
regrets- Rachel
13:16:43 [Rachel]
[made it after all, sorry a bit late!]
13:16:51 [eparsons]
Hi Rachel :-)
13:17:00 [joshlieberman]
Alejandro: OGC provides URI's but requirement can cover problems "already solved"
13:17:18 [eparsons]
ack next
13:17:28 [IanHolt]
present+ IanHolt
13:17:37 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate phila
13:17:51 [eparsons]
2)In the course of discussing CRS requirements a new BP requirement was introduced: Default CRS. No issues have been raised with regard to this requirement yet.
13:18:31 [cory]
present+ cory
13:18:31 [MattPerry]
13:18:35 [SimonCox] all good
13:18:42 [eparsons]
ack next
13:19:20 [joshlieberman]
MattPerry: GeoSPARQL sets a default of WGS84 as represented in OGC CRS84
13:19:45 [joshlieberman]
13:19:49 [jtandy]
13:19:52 [eparsons]
ack next
13:20:08 [Alejandro_Llaves]
The req. under discussion is described here
13:20:21 [jtandy]
joshlieberman: we need to decide what that default would be
13:20:37 [eparsons]
ack next
13:20:40 [kerry]
we do hav e issue-28 on this topic
13:20:40 [jtandy]
... looking at usage, wgs84 is by far most common
13:20:59 [LarsG]
13:21:06 [joshlieberman]
joshlieberman: the prevalence of CRS84 recommends the practicality of a default
13:21:21 [phila]
present+ Cory, SimonCox, ThiagoAvila
13:21:22 [eparsons]
ack next
13:21:44 [kerry]
13:22:27 [eparsons]
ack next
13:23:25 [kerry]
13:23:28 [joshlieberman]
kerry: WGS84 is most common, but not applicable to some use cases.
13:24:15 [joshlieberman]
kerry: prefer a simple reference over a default
13:24:34 [jtandy]
13:24:50 [Rachel]
+1 to Kerry
13:25:30 [SimonCox]
'no default' would immediately invalidate all GeoJSON (which _does_ have a default in fact)
13:25:32 [joshlieberman]
eparsons: many user communities do not include a reference and a clear default might have helped with clarity
13:25:46 [eparsons]
3)In the course of discussing CRS requirements a possible new BP requirement has come up. ISSUE-29 (Add a requirement for linking geometry to CRS) was raised to enable further discussion and/or decision-making.
13:26:17 [SimonCox]
13:26:18 [joshlieberman]
13:26:21 [eparsons]
ack next
13:27:46 [joshlieberman]
SimonCox: no clear practice. GeoSPARQL inherits WKT and GML. GeoJSON doesn't support geometry CRS's
13:28:36 [eparsons]
ack next
13:28:36 [jtandy]
13:29:53 [eparsons]
ack next
13:30:11 [joshlieberman]
joshlieberman: geometry-level CRS anticipates multiple possible geometries per spatial entity
13:30:12 [jtandy]
"all geometries shall be associated with a CRS"
13:30:18 [Alejandro_Llaves]
13:30:23 [eparsons]
13:30:41 [MattPerry]
13:31:16 [SimonCox]
13:31:26 [joshlieberman]
13:31:40 [kerry]
13:32:08 [IanHolt]
13:32:19 [SimonCox]
(what I meant was we need to say something about the predicate, as well as the CRS resource ...)
13:32:36 [eparsons]
4)Whether 'a recommend way' is the best expression to be used in requirements is something that is discussed in the thread Use of the word 'standard' in the UCR document.
13:32:39 [kerry]
itis documented in the tracker
13:32:41 [phila]
RESOLVED: That at the highest level, the BP doc will say that "all geometries shall be associated with a CRS"
13:33:22 [joshlieberman]
13:33:25 [kerry]
13:33:27 [eparsons]
ack next
13:33:36 [phila]
q+ kerry
13:36:00 [eparsons]
ack next
13:36:27 [joshlieberman]
joshlieberman: BP should strive to recommend "specification" that at some times will be accepted standards
13:36:57 [Alejandro_Llaves]
13:37:03 [eparsons]
ack next
13:37:06 [joshlieberman]
kerry: prefer "advice"
13:37:41 [kerry]
13:37:55 [joshlieberman]
Alejandro: do the terms need to be in the requirements?
13:39:08 [eparsons]
ack next
13:39:59 [kerry]
13:40:03 [joshlieberman]
kerry: term "advice" works for requirements. BP can then use other terms for its "advice"
13:40:09 [jtandy]
13:40:13 [MattPerry]
13:40:14 [SimonCox]
Did we finish the 'default CRS' question?
13:41:17 [Alejandro_Llaves]
I can do that
13:41:19 [joshlieberman]
jtandy: we seem to have ducked the default CRS question and not yet agreed whether to make it a requirement or not.
13:41:53 [eparsons]
Topic : Best Practices Skeleton
13:42:04 [eparsons]
13:42:27 [joshlieberman]
phila, not remembering how to create an action. Please demonstrate...
13:42:37 [phila]
action: Llaves to highlight that the default CRS issue is unresolved, when next editing the UCR doc
13:42:38 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-55 - Highlight that the default crs issue is unresolved, when next editing the ucr doc [on Alejandro Llaves - due 2015-07-08].
13:42:54 [Alejandro_Llaves]
13:44:02 [phila]
regrets+ Bill
13:44:14 [joshlieberman]
jtandy: not sure that UCR content has sufficiently been analyzed to create an appropriate skeleton / outline.
13:45:21 [joshlieberman]
joshlieberman: how do you characterize the "things" to form the outline?
13:45:38 [phila]
13:46:16 [joshlieberman]
jtandy: that should fall out of the analysis.
13:46:42 [joshlieberman]
joshlieberman: should we say "common practices" to cover?
13:47:08 [eparsons]
ack next
13:48:03 [joshlieberman]
phila: there was analysis in Barcelona as far as the requirements extraction. Question may be "is the list of requirements complete?"
13:48:44 [joshlieberman]
joshlieberman: some examples of "dangling requirements" would help.
13:50:09 [Alejandro_Llaves]
Well, there are some reqs. waiting to be discussed and raised as issues.
13:50:29 [eparsons]
Topic: ANOB
13:50:31 [joshlieberman]
joshlieberman: is it initially a process of scrubbing the requirements?
13:50:36 [Alejandro_Llaves]
That I assume will be discussed in forthcoming calls.
13:50:51 [phila]
q+ To talk about TPAC
13:50:56 [eparsons]
ack next
13:50:57 [Zakim]
phila, you wanted to talk about TPAC
13:50:57 [joshlieberman]
jtandy: process for providing UCR draft feedback?
13:52:15 [joshlieberman]
phila: there is a comments tracker tool that can be used to extract from email feedback (as part of WG review)
13:54:48 [joshlieberman]
joshlieberman: for OGC public documents (standards or other) the public can provide feedback either on a mailing list or through the Change Request mechanism. Members of the WG will then need to review and transfer to W3C list / tool
13:56:39 [joshlieberman]
phila: working document only lists the W3C list (needs to be corrected).
13:57:04 [phila]
action: phila to update UCR snapshot with public-comments list ASAP
13:57:05 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-56 - to update ucr snapshot with public-comments list asap [on Phil Archer - due 2015-07-08].
13:58:29 [joshlieberman]
action: ed to monitor OGC channels for feedback on the UCR draft once released as an OGC document
13:58:30 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-57 - Monitor ogc channels for feedback on the ucr draft once released as an ogc document [on Ed Parsons - due 2015-07-08].
13:58:50 [LarsG]
bye, thanks
13:58:50 [Alejandro_Llaves]
thanks, bye!
13:58:57 [phila]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:58:57 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate phila
13:58:58 [Rachel]
13:58:59 [eparsons]
bye !
13:59:00 [joshlieberman]
bye, thanks
13:59:03 [joshlieberman]
joshlieberman has left #sdw
13:59:06 [IanHolt]
13:59:15 [SimonCox]
Regrets for next week
13:59:20 [SimonCox]
school holidays
13:59:24 [phila]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:59:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate phila
14:13:47 [eparsons]
eparsons has joined #sdw
16:00:57 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #sdw
17:03:03 [phila]
RRSAgent, bye
17:03:03 [RRSAgent]
I see 3 open action items saved in :
17:03:03 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Llaves to highlight that the default CRS issue is unresolved, when next editing the UCR doc [1]
17:03:03 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:03:03 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: phila to update UCR snapshot with public-comments list ASAP [2]
17:03:03 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:03:03 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: ed to monitor OGC channels for feedback on the UCR draft once released as an OGC document [3]
17:03:03 [RRSAgent]
recorded in