Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 01 July 2015

preent+ joshlieberman

<phila> scribe: joshlieberman

Approve Minutes

<eparsons> http://www.w3.org/2015/06/24-sdw-minutes.html

<eparsons> PROPOSED: Accept last weeks minutes

<eparsons> +1

<MattPerry> +1

<Alejandro_Llaves> +1

joshlieberman wasn't on the call

<kerry> +1

<eparsons> RESOLVED: Accept last week's minutes

<SimonCox> SimonCox not present

Patent Call

<eparsons> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

Combined CRS Issues

<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."

<SimonCox> Do we need the word 'recommended'?

jtandy: good to avoid parse-able URI

<phila> phila: Notes that Frans' proposal was made at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jun/0228.html

<SimonCox> +1

<SimonCox> +1

SimonCox: we don't need the "recommended" part

<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."

<jtandy> +!

<jtandy> +1

+q

<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'?

<ThiagoAvila> Hi for all.

MattPerry: there should be "one" way

<MattPerry> I can live with removal of "recommended"

<Alejandro_Llaves> Me too

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to show his ignorance

<SimonCox> OGC does, but so do others

<Alejandro_Llaves> +q

jtandy: phila: doesn't OGC provide CRS URL's

phila: should requirement also include what the URI returns?

<Rachel> [made it after all, sorry a bit late!]

<eparsons> Hi Rachel :-)

Alejandro: OGC provides URI's but requirement can cover problems "already solved"

<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.

<SimonCox> http://epsg.io http://spatialreference.org http://www.opengis.net/def/crs/EPSG/0/ all good

MattPerry: GeoSPARQL sets a default of WGS84 as represented in OGC CRS84

<Alejandro_Llaves> The req. under discussion is described here http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#DefaultCRS

<jtandy> joshlieberman: we need to decide what that default would be

<kerry> we do hav e issue-28 on this topic

<jtandy> ... looking at usage, wgs84 is by far most common

joshlieberman: the prevalence of CRS84 recommends the practicality of a default

<kerry> +q

<kerry> yes

kerry: WGS84 is most common, but not applicable to some use cases.
... prefer a simple reference over a default

<jtandy> +1

<Rachel> +1 to Kerry

<SimonCox> 'no default' would immediately invalidate all GeoJSON (which _does_ have a default in fact)

eparsons: many user communities do not include a reference and a clear default might have helped with clarity

<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.

SimonCox: no clear practice. GeoSPARQL inherits WKT and GML. GeoJSON doesn't support geometry CRS's

joshlieberman: geometry-level CRS anticipates multiple possible geometries per spatial entity

<jtandy> "all geometries shall be associated with a CRS"

<Alejandro_Llaves> +1

<eparsons> +1

<MattPerry> +1

<SimonCox> +1

+1

<kerry> +1

<IanHolt> +1

<SimonCox> (what I meant was we need to say something about the predicate, as well as the CRS resource ...)

<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.

<kerry> itis documented in the tracker

<phila> RESOLVED: That at the highest level, the BP doc will say that "all geometries shall be associated with a CRS"

<kerry> +

joshlieberman: BP should strive to recommend "specification" that at some times will be accepted standards

<Alejandro_Llaves> +q

kerry: prefer "advice"

Alejandro: do the terms need to be in the requirements?

<kerry> +1

kerry: term "advice" works for requirements. BP can then use other terms for its "advice"

<jtandy> +1

<MattPerry> +1

<SimonCox> Did we finish the 'default CRS' question?

<Alejandro_Llaves> I can do that

jtandy: we seem to have ducked the default CRS question and not yet agreed whether to make it a requirement or not.

<eparsons> Topic : Best Practices Skeleton

<eparsons> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Notes_for_Context#Suggested_Skeleton

phila, not remembering how to create an action. Please demonstrate...

<phila> ACTION: Llaves to highlight that the default CRS issue is unresolved, when next editing the UCR doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

<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].

<Alejandro_Llaves> thanks!

jtandy: not sure that UCR content has sufficiently been analyzed to create an appropriate skeleton / outline.

joshlieberman: how do you characterize the "things" to form the outline?

jtandy: that should fall out of the analysis.

joshlieberman: should we say "common practices" to cover?

phila: there was analysis in Barcelona as far as the requirements extraction. Question may be "is the list of requirements complete?"

joshlieberman: some examples of "dangling requirements" would help.

<Alejandro_Llaves> Well, there are some reqs. waiting to be discussed and raised as issues.

ANOB

joshlieberman: is it initially a process of scrubbing the requirements?

<Alejandro_Llaves> That I assume will be discussed in forthcoming calls.

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about TPAC

jtandy: process for providing UCR draft feedback?

phila: there is a comments tracker tool that can be used to extract from email feedback (as part of WG review)

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

phila: working document only lists the W3C list (needs to be corrected).

<phila> ACTION: phila to update UCR snapshot with public-comments list ASAP [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - to update ucr snapshot with public-comments list asap [on Phil Archer - due 2015-07-08].

<scribe> ACTION: ed to monitor OGC channels for feedback on the UCR draft once released as an OGC document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes.html#action03]

<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].

<LarsG> bye, thanks

<Alejandro_Llaves> thanks, bye!

<Rachel> bye

<eparsons> bye !

bye, thanks

<IanHolt> bye

<SimonCox> Regrets for next week

<SimonCox> school holidays