12:56:32 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sdw
12:56:32 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/10/14-sdw-irc
12:56:34 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
12:56:34 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sdw
12:56:36 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SDW
12:56:36 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
12:56:37 <trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
12:56:38 <trackbot> Date: 14 October 2015
12:57:14 <eparsons> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:57:24 <eparsons> present+ eparsons
12:57:44 <eparsons> chair : eparsons
12:57:53 <eparsons> Meeting: SDW WG Weekly
12:58:36 <kerry> present+ kerry
12:59:57 <eparsons> Hey where is everyone ?
13:00:38 <Payam> Payam has joined #sdw
13:01:13 <Alejandro_Llaves> Alejandro_Llaves has joined #sdw
13:01:29 <Alejandro_Llaves> present+ Alejandro_Llaves
13:02:13 <Payam> present +Payam
13:02:25 <billroberts> billroberts has joined #sdw
13:03:51 <joshlieberman> joshlieberman has joined #sdw
13:04:04 <Linda> Linda has joined #sdw
13:04:11 <billroberts> mornign all, just trying to get my webex going
13:04:14 <joshlieberman> present+ joshlieberman
13:04:16 <eparsons> OK Bill
13:04:43 <kerry> mornig? oy yes. it *isI morning, by 5 minutes
13:04:45 <billroberts> (morning/afternoon/evening as appropriate)
13:05:16 <frans> frans has joined #sdw
13:05:33 <frans> present+ frans
13:05:43 <kerry> scribe: josh
13:05:45 <Linda> present+ Linda
13:05:52 <kerry> scribenick: josh
13:06:00 <jtandy> jtandy has joined #sdw
13:06:13 <kerry> scribenick: joshlieberman
13:06:15 <jtandy> present+ jtandy
13:06:24 <LarsG> LarsG has joined #sdw
13:06:33 <billrobe_> billrobe_ has joined #sdw
13:06:51 <LarsG> present+ LarsG
13:07:21 <eparsons> Topic: Approve Minutes
13:07:28 <eparsons> http://www.w3.org/2015/10/07-sdw-minutes.html
13:07:35 <eparsons> PROPOSED: Accept last meeting minutes
13:07:38 <jtandy> +0 (apologies - wasn't there)
13:07:38 <eparsons> +1
13:07:41 <kerry> +1
13:07:42 <LarsG> +1
13:07:45 <frans> +1
13:07:47 <Alejandro_Llaves> +0, not there
13:07:51 <Linda> +1
13:07:52 <eparsons> RESOLVED: Accept last meeting minutes
13:07:56 <billrobe_> present+ billroberts
13:07:59 <Payam> +1
13:08:01 <eparsons> Topic: Patent Call - https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
13:08:12 <kerry> rrsagent, make logs public
13:08:47 <eparsons> Topic: Resolving remaining UCR issues
13:09:03 <kerry> regrets+ Bart van Leeuwen
13:09:15 <kerry> regrets+ Rachel Heaven
13:09:23 <frans> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/products/1
13:09:30 <kerry> regrets+ Jon Blower
13:09:39 <joshlieberman> frans: remaining unresolved issues
13:09:41 <kerry> regrets+ Simon Cox
13:09:54 <kerry> regrets+ Stefan Lemme
13:10:36 <eparsons> q?
13:11:38 <kerry> +q
13:11:52 <eparsons> ack next
13:12:24 <joshlieberman> frans: Issue 16 valid time requirement out of scope? Issue 15 represent past, present, future not clear?
13:12:31 <ChrisLittle> ChrisLittle has joined #sdw
13:12:51 <billrobe_> q+
13:12:56 <ChrisLittle> present+ ChrisLittle
13:13:03 <joshlieberman> kerry: what is the Valid time disagreement?
13:13:05 <eparsons> ack next
13:13:21 <Payam> Payam has joined #sdw
13:13:43 <joshlieberman> frans: one view is that OWL-Time expresses time, not its relevance to spatial data.
13:13:58 <joshlieberman> q+
13:14:38 <ChrisLittle> q+
13:14:58 <joshlieberman> kerry: agreed, but should we cover those relationships additionally?
13:15:05 <jtandy> q+ to ask about scoping
13:15:10 <eparsons> ack next
13:15:31 <joshlieberman> frans: well, not technically in scope, since the scope covers OWL-TIme alone and that doesn't include validity predicates.
13:16:02 <joshlieberman> billrobert: isn't this a generic data issues?
13:16:22 <kerry> +1
13:16:50 <frans> http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-valid
13:17:35 <eparsons> ack next
13:19:50 <eparsons> ack next
13:19:51 <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask about scoping
13:20:27 <joshlieberman> josh: spatial data needs particular expressions of validity / relevance to the real world. That has to include time.
13:21:05 <joshlieberman> chris: in general, the representation of time on the Web needs work as well, and this group or someone else needs to take this on.
13:22:45 <kerry> q+
13:22:50 <joshlieberman> jeremy: validTime is conceived as just a property with range OWL-Time. Should create / adopt bits of vocabulary as needed such as this.
13:23:27 <joshlieberman> eparsons: probably need to decide this sort of scope question sooner rather than later.
13:23:29 <jtandy> (the SDW charter allows us to formalise practice as necessary - we could produce additonal Notes)
13:23:41 <billrobe_> Ed: kerry is on the speaker queue
13:23:56 <eparsons> ack next
13:24:00 <Alejandro_Llaves> +q
13:24:33 <jtandy> "spatial data needs temporal context" ... good point kerry
13:24:48 <eparsons> ack next
13:24:55 <joshlieberman> kerry: agree with josh, chris, jeremy that spatial data needs temporal context. Shouldn't feel constrained by narrow interpretation of scope.
13:25:11 <billrobe_> q+
13:25:33 <eparsons> ack next
13:25:43 <Alejandro_Llaves> I can write, then...
13:26:11 <joshlieberman> billrobe_: clear this is important, not clear that anyone has done this for us, so reassured on scope.
13:27:11 <joshlieberman> frans: Issue 15: trend towards not having this as a requirement
13:27:50 <jtandy> past, present and future are valid statements only at a particular point in time ... we need relative statements; e.g. "before {now}" = past
13:28:03 <frans> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#TemporalReferenceSystem
13:28:08 <joshlieberman> frans: Issue 25: temporal reference "description should be referenceable online
13:28:13 <jtandy> (previous comment relating to Issue 15)
13:28:31 <joshlieberman> could we change "description" to "definition"?
13:28:33 <jtandy> s/(previous/(my previous/
13:28:50 <joshlieberman> q+
13:28:51 <Alejandro_Llaves> IMO, with many of this issues related to UCR document we are trying to provide solutions. And this is not the point of the UCR document, nor the proper time to provide solutions to them, according to the group charter schedule. Best practice document and the corresponding Time deliverables, etc. would be the proper tool to discuss and propose solutions to the issues. I understood the UCR document as an exercise to extract requirements from UCs.
13:29:28 <Alejandro_Llaves> We could discuss if reqs are well phrased, if they need more examples, etc. But it seems we are trying to solve them now.
13:29:30 <eparsons> PROPOSED: Accept "Temporal reference system requirement: phrasing" for Issue 25
13:29:55 <frans> proposal: If a temporal reference is used, the definition of the temporal reference system (e.g. Unix date, Gregorian Calendar, Japanese Imperial Calendar, Carbon Date, Geological Date) should be referenceable online.
13:29:57 <Linda> +1
13:29:59 <joshlieberman> +1
13:30:04 <jtandy> +1
13:30:04 <eparsons> +1
13:30:05 <billrobe_> +1
13:30:06 <frans> +1
13:30:10 <Alejandro_Llaves> +1
13:30:14 <LarsG> +1
13:30:21 <kerry> +1
13:30:29 <eparsons> RESOLVED: Accept "Temporal reference system requirement: phrasing" for Issue 25
13:30:54 <chaals> chaals has joined #sdw
13:31:31 <joshlieberman> frans: Issue 28 - require default CRS, Issue 29 - require linking geometry to CRS
13:32:22 <jtandy> q+
13:32:31 <joshlieberman> q-
13:32:32 <eparsons> ack next
13:32:39 <ChrisLittle> q+
13:33:05 <joshlieberman> kerry: maybe it will go away on its own?
13:33:12 <joshlieberman> eparsons: never!
13:33:21 <eparsons> ack next
13:33:53 <joshlieberman> jeremy: point to real practices and decide what to adopt, rather than making a hard requirement.
13:33:54 <kerry> +q
13:34:06 <joshlieberman> q+
13:34:10 <eparsons> ack next
13:34:52 <eparsons> ack next
13:34:59 <frans> q+
13:35:39 <jtandy> joshlieberman: there is widespread practice to assume WGS84
13:35:45 <jtandy> ... mostly this works
13:35:48 <ChrisLittle> q+
13:36:19 <jtandy> joshlieberman: if we accumulate enough evidence of the assumption about WGS84 being broken, then we can make a statement
13:36:22 <eparsons> ack next
13:36:27 <jtandy> ... about people changing their practice
13:36:36 <joshlieberman> josh: good approach to examine practice. Maybe we will develop a requirement if practice turns out to be broken.
13:37:31 <joshlieberman> frans: people may be waiting for better "best practices". Continental drift may be catching up with us anyway.
13:37:38 <eparsons> ack next
13:39:47 <frans> q+
13:39:53 <Linda> +1
13:39:53 <eparsons> ack next
13:39:57 <jtandy> q+ to ask about namespacing?
13:40:03 <eparsons> +1 to chris
13:40:08 <joshlieberman> chris: agree that evidence is needed. At some point, though, a CRS does need to be understood, whether its a defined default or not.
13:40:25 <eparsons> ack next
13:40:27 <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask about namespacing?
13:40:28 <ChrisLittle> +1
13:40:47 <joshlieberman> frans: remember that these are requirements, not yet solutions
13:41:15 <kerry> +1 to jeremy
13:41:58 <joshlieberman> jeremy: the base requirement is "where are things on the planet (or elsewhere)" Only 1% need to make CRS explicit, but what do we need to do for the 99%
13:42:11 <Alejandro_Llaves> yay!
13:42:13 <kerry> t+1 -- this is a solution but is so easy that it should not be too hard for anyone -- it is effectively a default while being explicit
13:43:03 <Alejandro_Llaves> +1 to Ed
13:44:04 <kerry> +1 to frans solution
13:44:04 <joshlieberman> frans: still good idea to have a wiki page for evidence and ideas.
13:44:49 <joshlieberman> +1 to wiki page
13:45:06 <eparsons> Topic: Best Practice update
13:45:16 <kerry> action: Frans to start a wiki page on evidence for CRS being needed or not
13:45:16 <trackbot> Created ACTION-82 - Start a wiki page on evidence for crs being needed or not [on Frans Knibbe - due 2015-10-21].
13:45:18 <eparsons> yay Linda !!!
13:45:23 <Linda> thanks Jeremy
13:45:27 <joshlieberman> jeremy: welcome on the editorial board to Linda
13:45:53 <jtandy> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Linked-data
13:46:13 <kerry> q+ to mention mapping use cases to themes
13:46:18 <Payam> yes, we had a quick discussion on it
13:46:33 <joshlieberman> Do you not have audio?
13:46:55 <eparsons> ack next
13:46:56 <Zakim> kerry, you wanted to mention mapping use cases to themes
13:47:35 <Payam> since the last meeting, there have been some new emails in the discussion thread and I will update the wiki
13:47:57 <joshlieberman> kerry: Linda has done some of the mapping of issues to requirements. I did some for the sensors thread.
13:48:42 <Linda> This is the link https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidated_Narratives
13:49:23 <kerry> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidated_Narratives#Mapping_Requirements_to_this_theme_.28Kerry.29
13:50:01 <Linda> yes both
13:50:03 <kerry> +1
13:50:12 <LarsG> +1
13:50:12 <jtandy> +1
13:50:18 <joshlieberman> jeremy: clear that different levels of abstraction are involved. Are we interested in both evident levels?
13:50:19 <eparsons> +1 the thing and its representation
13:50:20 <ChrisLittle> +1
13:50:25 <joshlieberman> +1
13:50:51 <eparsons> q+
13:50:56 <ChrisLittle> complex geometry
13:51:02 <joshlieberman> jeremy: anything special about spatial data sets?
13:51:34 <frans> q+
13:51:45 <joshlieberman> q+
13:51:54 <eparsons> ack next
13:51:57 <eparsons> ack next
13:52:36 <joshlieberman> frans: high chance that spatial data is "professional" with curators / maintainers, etc.
13:53:22 <eparsons> ack next
13:54:24 <eparsons> rrsagent, draft minutes
13:54:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/10/14-sdw-minutes.html eparsons
13:54:54 <eparsons> q?
13:55:06 <joshlieberman> joshlieberman: spatial data actually has different structure and granularity because it represents real world entities.
13:55:15 <frans> q+
13:55:23 <eparsons> ack next
13:55:59 <joshlieberman> frans: another specialty: special links between data entities.
13:56:24 <eparsons> +1 for links
13:56:50 <joshlieberman> jeremy: "links are 1st class citizens" - consensus here. But what does that mean for link-poor formats?
13:56:56 <frans> I am afraid I did not understand the 3...2...1 question
13:57:03 <joshlieberman> q+
13:57:09 <eparsons> ack next
13:57:32 <ChrisLittle> q+
13:57:44 <eparsons> ack next
13:58:15 <kerry> +q but json-ld does do links, doesn't it?
13:58:30 <eparsons> Josh : no best Practice yet..
13:58:35 <joshlieberman> josh: a consistent practice was identified in TB-11 as a need, but would have to be synthesized from disparate practice.
13:58:43 <joshlieberman> --for JSON
13:58:46 <eparsons> ack next
13:59:17 <joshlieberman> chris: tools are part of the need for those link-poor formats.
14:00:20 <joshlieberman> eparsons: out of time -- look forward to the 8 other issues next time.
14:00:21 <frans> What a great cliffhanger. I can wait for the next edition of the meeting.
14:00:39 <billrobe_> :-)  thanks everyone
14:00:51 <LarsG> Thanks, bye
14:00:53 <frans> s/can wait/can not wait/
14:01:06 <Alejandro_Llaves> thanks, bye!
14:01:07 <Linda> bye!
14:01:08 <Payam> thanks, bye
14:01:09 <kerry> bye!
14:01:09 <joshlieberman> bye thanks
14:01:10 <eparsons> bye all _ thanks
14:01:13 <ChrisLittle> bye
14:01:16 <frans> bye!
14:01:21 <ChrisLittle> ChrisLittle has left #sdw
14:01:25 <eparsons> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:01:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/10/14-sdw-minutes.html eparsons
14:01:42 <joshlieberman> joshlieberman has left #sdw
15:04:47 <jtandy> jtandy has joined #sdw
16:20:21 <chaals> chaals has joined #sdw
16:27:50 <Zakim> Zakim has left #sdw