23:15:24 RRSAgent has joined #sdw 23:15:24 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/10/26-sdw-irc 23:15:39 RRSAgent, this meeting spans midnight 23:15:46 RRSAgent, make logs public 23:20:50 ahaller2 has joined #sdw 23:29:19 eparsons has joined #sdw 23:30:47 trackbot, start meeting 23:30:49 RRSAgent, make logs world 23:30:49 Zakim has joined #sdw 23:30:51 Zakim, this will be SDW 23:30:51 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 23:30:52 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference 23:30:52 Date: 26 October 2015 23:31:13 RRSAgent, make logs public 23:31:41 Meeting: SDW WG TPAC Meeting Day 2 23:31:53 present+ eparsons 23:32:02 chair : eparsons 23:32:10 stakagi has joined #sdw 23:32:44 Morning everyone... starting soon 23:38:24 jtandy has joined #sdw 23:38:31 Linda has joined #sdw 23:38:31 LarsG has joined #sdw 23:38:36 present+ jtandy 23:38:38 present+ LarsG 23:38:38 present+ Linda 23:39:39 ahaller2_ has joined #sdw 23:40:57 mmiyazaki has joined #sdw 23:42:39 Cherif has joined #SDW 23:43:13 scribe: LarsG 23:43:22 scribeNick: LarsG 23:43:26 BartvanLeeuwen has joined #sdw 23:43:31 present+ BartvanLeeuwen 23:44:43 Topic: Notes from yesterday 23:45:14 BartvanLeeuwen: Problem is that featrure services choose their properties freely 23:45:30 ... has created standardised properties using URIs 23:45:41 ... is that out of scope for this WG? 23:46:24 kerry has joined #sdw 23:46:25 jtandy: Canadian service stores its data in a special database but offer a web interface 23:46:45 RRSAgent, draft minutes 23:46:45 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/10/26-sdw-minutes.html phila 23:47:04 BartvanLeeuwen: I want a standardised way to access the data. 23:47:27 eparsons: The feature service can offer RDF 23:47:50 present+ phila 23:47:59 BartvanLeeuwen: Is it in the scope of the WG to make a best practice for pulishing data from feature services? 23:48:12 present+ kerry 23:48:21 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web, TPAC F2F Day 2 23:48:24 eparsons: There is none, but we can say: Add this element to your data and you'll be fine 23:49:20 jtandy: Adding a URI is pretty straightforward, but making it webby is harder 23:49:33 s/jtandy/eparsons/ 23:50:17 timbl has joined #sdw 23:50:32 BartvanLeeuwen: Ambulance example again. The web feature service might not tell good enough what it is, but linked data with reasoning might help 23:51:12 q+ 23:51:21 eparsons: WFS doesn't play well enough with Linked Data, catalogue servers need to expose the information well enough. There is a piece missing 23:51:58 BartvanLeeuwen: Catalogue service is not that necessary, but you need a standard way of doing things 23:52:14 eparsons: Right, but there still is no best practice 23:52:26 Linda: It will be in our testbed 23:52:43 BartvanLeeuwen: Where do we write it if it isn't a best practice? 23:52:52 ack next 23:52:53 ack me 23:53:21 phila: Turning a feature service into something more discoverable, you want to automate that process 23:53:29 ... that is what Linked Data API is about 23:53:44 ... ELDO is an implementation 23:53:55 s/ELDO/ELDA 23:54:48 phila: the API is there to expose the database as LD doing dereferencing etc 23:55:17 BartvanLeeuwen: assumes that there is a webby version of the feature service 23:55:29 ... but how do I link them together? 23:55:55 eparsons: You might not just linkify the WFS, but you can create new service 23:56:15 BartvanLeeuwen: Right, but we should encourage people to webify their data 23:57:14 Linda: new document about discoverability added to the BP 23:57:25 ahaller2: Can we say that there is no best practice? 23:57:43 ... we can use the LD Platform etc, that is a best practice 23:58:03 ahaller2 has joined #sdw 23:58:06 eparsons: We need to identify best practicesa for spatial data 23:58:27 ahaller2: In Linked Data clould there are examples of spatial data that are webified 23:58:44 eparsons: there are different APIs (spatial and webby) where do they meet? 23:58:51 ... Can they meet at all? 23:59:24 BartvanLeeuwen: Will put this discussion in the API section 00:00:16 Action: BartvanLeeuwen to put API discussion into BP document 00:00:16 Error finding 'BartvanLeeuwen'. You can review and register nicknames at . 00:00:55 Topic: Identifiers 00:01:00 ACTION: BartvanLeeuwen to write up a BP around properties in WFS to link a feature to its linked data version 00:01:00 Error finding 'BartvanLeeuwen'. You can review and register nicknames at . 00:02:00 ACTION: Bartvanleeuwen to write up a BP around properties in WFS to link a feature to its linked data version 00:02:00 Error finding 'Bartvanleeuwen'. You can review and register nicknames at . 00:02:25 jtandy: PROV-O is based on events. Do we need to discuss how to record time and location for prov events? 00:02:52 ACTION: Bart to write up a BP around properties in WFS to link a feature to its linked data version 00:02:53 Created ACTION-85 - Write up a bp around properties in wfs to link a feature to its linked data version [on Bart van Leeuwen - due 2015-11-03]. 00:03:47 jtandy: We don't write about BP for prov, but when it comes how to express temporal data, we might use a prov example 00:04:24 kerry: that might not match what we do and we do that in owl:time anyway 00:04:47 q+ to introduce SEM 00:04:54 ... prov has no value here 00:05:09 eparsons: We can revisit that later when it comes to best practices for time 00:05:14 ack next 00:05:15 BartvanLeeuwen, you wanted to introduce SEM 00:05:15 s/has no value/adds no extra value/ 00:07:11 jtandy: it's too early to pick an ontology for events. Let's see what people use and how it works for them 00:07:54 q? 00:07:56 ahaller2: We don't need specific identifiers to solve the fuzzy event problem, it's not inherently spatiotemporal 00:08:20 jtandy: It's different from fuzzy places (fuzzy extent) 00:08:29 ... we'll revisit that later 00:08:52 Linda: Will we have fuzzy time as a best practice? 00:09:40 jtandy: yes 00:10:39 jtandy: relationship between versions of information resources 00:10:53 ... that describe spatial things 00:11:09 ... DWBP has BP for versioning 00:11:28 ... suggests to use the versioned-thing ontology 00:11:52 ... since there is nothing specifically spatio-temporal 00:12:08 phila: This group should write to the DWBP and ask them to do that 00:12:22 eparsons: Important, since we need something to point to 00:12:42 jtandy: We should cite that in our BP 00:12:51 eparsons: Does that fit with our time frame 00:13:07 hadleybeeman: don't know. 00:13:20 jtandy: We'll revisit this until after coffee 00:13:29 s/until after/after/ 00:13:43 -> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#dataVersioning Data versioning section in DWBP 00:13:50 jtandy: We need to make people aware that it's OK that representations change over time 00:14:02 stakagi has joined #sdw 00:14:12 mmiyazak_ has joined #sdw 00:14:20 ... we need an example in the "expressing data" section 00:14:48 ... e. g. areas for police data 00:15:15 eparsons: Right, and we should synchronise our document with DBWP 00:15:44 Sangchul has joined #sdw 00:15:53 phila: There is an example in DBWP that uses memento 00:16:08 mmiyaza__ has joined #sdw 00:16:11 ... good if jtandy could check that 00:16:46 Action: jtandy to check the BP for versioning given in DWBP 00:16:47 Created ACTION-86 - Check the bp for versioning given in dwbp [on Jeremy Tandy - due 2015-11-03]. 00:17:18 hadleybeeman: don't cite work in progress normatively 00:18:14 Linda: I've added that to the expressing data section 00:18:21 DWBP's doc is ahead of the SDW work and should be at CR by Jan 2016 (it's Rec Track) 00:19:06 topic: publishing with clear semantics 00:20:22 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidated_Narratives#publishing_data_with_clear_semantics 00:21:09 BartvanLeeuwen: There is no way to make a feature service explain that the thing is an instance of e. g skos:Concept 00:21:46 eparsons: The spatial component is secondary here, so it's flipping the view around 00:22:45 BartvanLeeuwen: Most software tools construct hugh URIs for the features 00:23:03 eparsons: So what is the best practice for using SKOS in our domain? 00:23:25 BartvanLeeuwen: We use that for open data for fire service 00:23:57 eparsons: that might be fine. We need to establish a BP, is there anytihing about spatial data that breaks skos? 00:24:18 ijongcheol has joined #sdw 00:25:02 kerry: people use QB and thus SKOS for publishing sensor observations 00:25:26 Linda: uses skos for publishing their information model, but there is nothing spatial about that. 00:25:39 ... we might not need to have SKOS as part of our BP 00:26:02 BartvanLeeuwen: skos is mostly good enough for our purposes 00:26:08 kerry has joined #sdw 00:26:20 ... if you're fine with simple semantics, skos is fine 00:26:31 jtandy: evolving case 00:27:28 ... several types of differently typed information, no top level governance 00:27:41 ... you try to reconsile this into a single service 00:28:04 ... all of that is spatial data 00:28:54 ... so our BP needs to say that publishers should also publish definitions of what their elements mean 00:29:10 ... WFS doesn't do that out of the bos 00:29:27 eparsons: that information might be in a catalogue but not in the WFS itself 00:29:56 jtandy: the WFS will serve GML data and might use a specific XML schema that might have that information (if it's online) 00:30:34 ... but if it's online you can look that up in the schema data that might refer to a UML model ... 00:31:52 ... there is a schema for GML that serves as a basis for application schemas 00:32:12 ... that every one publishes themselves (or not) 00:33:20 q? 00:33:37 jtandy: ... so we have JSON, feature data and hopes that someone has published an XML schema 00:34:01 tanakahr has joined #sdw 00:34:02 ... and linked data. Those who use linked data should publish their vocabularies 00:34:48 ... wth JSON it's just a name (so we don't know what it is) 00:35:08 ... we can put a context on top, JSON schema is another way 00:35:15 s/wth/with/ 00:35:36 ... this is a set of examples we can use to show people how to publish their definitions 00:35:56 BartvanLeeuwen: but this is what DWBP says, too 00:36:17 ... GML is XML, so publish your schemas 00:36:33 ... and that doesn't say anything about semantics 00:37:01 ... and XML holds the geospatial community back (quoting Simon Cox) 00:37:19 hadleybeeman: There is text in DWBP, is that enough? 00:37:54 This is the Data on the Web BP doc; we're talking about BP 4 on structured metadata http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/ 00:38:18 yeonsoo__ has joined #sdw 00:38:24 s/structured/structural 00:38:24 jtandy: SDW to work with DWBP to ensure that our needs is covered by their work 00:38:41 danbri has joined #sdw 00:39:23 danbri are you visiting us ? 00:39:27 jtandy: Is there a way to say that this concept is similar to that concept? 00:39:49 ... how can we help the mashing-up process? 00:39:57 ... Can SKOS help with that? 00:40:16 eparsons yes, are there any particular sessions it'd be useful for me to join? multi-tasking somewhat… 00:40:19 ahaller2: This is similar to the sameAs-discussion from yesterday 00:40:36 jtandy: We're trying to match the semantic concepts 00:40:51 phila: is ambulance a concept or a type 00:40:57 danbri anytime... we are pb bashing all day 00:40:59 ... concept is not a panacea 00:41:12 ... everyone will do it differently 00:41:23 ... so just using semantics doesn't help 00:42:04 eparsons: how can traditional geospatial data publishers use SKOS to give access to their catalogue? 00:42:26 jtandy: There is work that converts the general feature model and creates a skos version of it 00:42:32 ... currently not online 00:42:45 ... this is a gap 00:42:54 BartvanLeeuwen: not sure that is a best practice 00:43:19 ... a spatial thing is only one property of linked data representation 00:43:34 ... many people started to use skos instead of literals 00:43:54 ... you have feature services for all kinds of fire trucks, ambulances, etc. 00:44:52 eparsons: we get most value from using skos for non-spatial things 00:45:07 ahaller2: They use skos in DCAT 00:45:15 BartvanLeeuwen: so then we have a best practice 00:45:43 s/DCAT/DCAT with a dcat:theme property 00:46:16 hadleybeeman: is this about drawing the line betwenn SDW and DWBP or is it about vocabulary selection? 00:46:44 ... we don't want the spec to be overly restricting 00:47:24 eparsons: in a feature database about fires, there is a property about the location of the fire 00:47:39 +1 for hadleybeeman not restricting to specific vocabularies in the BP document 00:48:03 ... can we concentrate on the spatial aspect or do we have offer BP for the other information, too? 00:48:34 ... there are more complex use cases behind this 00:49:09 BartvanLeeuwen: spatial semantics are not covered by skos 00:49:18 eparsons: we need a spatial vocabulary, e. g. nearby 00:49:30 ... is there a defined vocabulary for this 00:49:47 BartvanLeeuwen: but then it's spatial semantics about a specific feature 00:50:16 ... we need to split the semantics into two: spatial and the semantics/properties of the feature 00:50:39 eparsons: that mght be a solution 00:50:57 jtandy: thematic vs. spatial semantics 00:51:07 s/mght/might/ 00:53:07 hadleybeeman: assumes that relationships between precise spatial data are precise, too. What about "nearby"? Should those be dropped in favour of only precise relations? 00:53:34 kerry: we had this yesterday and decided that those relations are topological and social, too 00:54:29 jtandy: We meet in "trafalgar square". If we see it as a monument or a meeting place, doesn't matter, it's the same place 00:54:39 ahal 00:55:04 s/ahal/ahaller2: foaf has basedNear/ 00:56:13 kerry: there are three relations in geosparql 00:56:39 ... if we need a bp, that might be best for our community 00:57:32 jtandy: getting everyone to agree on one vocabulary is impossible. That is more for intended audience and case-specific 00:57:51 hadleybeeman: that's much work but you'll get feedback immediately if it works or not 00:58:23 BartvanLeeuwen: people might ignore the document if they don't think their case is not in there 00:58:42 ahaller2: we could keep it generic and refer back to ontology patterns 00:58:59 eparsons: there might be no best practice (gap) 00:59:10 kerry: if there is no BP we cannot write anything 00:59:34 hadleybeeman: sometimes diversity is helpful 01:00:16 ... BP has to be testable, so we cannot just use defaults 01:00:29 phila: BP is not to make any mistakes 01:00:45 jtandy: summary: there is much we can say about spatial semantics 01:01:08 ... e. g. helping people to find the right vocabulary for the task 01:01:41 ... at 2014 workshop the community said they didn't know what vocabulary to use 01:01:53 ... and they need tools in order to support all of them 01:02:03 hadleybeeman: is this more about methodology? 01:02:43 jtandy: Possibly. We need external feedback on "do we do this or that" 01:03:32 ... Do we provide a methodology to provide the right vocabulary or do we tell them what to do. 01:04:00 s/e. g./e.g. 01:04:07 ... The first is does not age. 01:04:18 phila: We should offer durable advice 01:04:22 s/if there is no BP/ if we apply that test for BP, / 01:05:34 jtandy: we want to provide a methodology to find the right vocabulary 01:07:06 q+ 01:07:09 eparsons: primary use case is to help people that have a database to publish that on the web and make it mashable 01:07:12 ack next 01:07:39 kerry: people that only have informal locations are left out by that 01:07:40 Sangchul has joined #sdw 01:08:05 jtandy: like those that just want to publish about their village fête. 01:08:16 ... their methodology is different 01:09:11 BartvanLeeuwen: So we do spatial semantics and DBWP the thematic semantics? 01:09:38 jtandy: Yes, we don't want to give this advice 01:10:10 phila: common question: how do I refer to a location? 01:11:09 q? 01:11:48 jtandy: thematic data is a broader problem 01:12:09 hadleybeeman: let us know if you find any exceptions to that hypothesis 01:12:58 jtandy: cross-border fire operations is a thematic problem. Only the location part is spatial 01:13:14 hadleybeeman: the location might be what glues it together 01:13:39 BartvanLeeuwen: but that's only for the location. The rest is thematic 01:14:34 eparsons: sometimes we don't want to use GIS coordinate matching but just to say it's in the same village 01:16:17 BartvanLeeuwen: just using the spatial component is too narrow, you need to use adminstrative info, too. Example being evacuating children to the nearest day care centre instead of to one that belongs to the same organisation 01:17:31 hadleybeeman: discovering data is different from data use. 01:17:51 jtandy: part of discovery is finding related information 01:18:16 hadleybeeman: we haven't discussed links between datasets 01:18:49 jtandy: we can provide input to a new WG trying to solve that problem 01:27:30 mmiyazaki has joined #sdw 01:39:09 ahaller2 has joined #sdw 01:40:37 jtandy has joined #sdw 01:40:47 scribe: BartvanLeeuwen 01:40:57 scribeNick: BartvanLeeuwen 01:41:01 danbri has joined #sdw 01:41:15 Topic: Formalizing relation between SDW-WG and DWBP-WG 01:41:21 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Theme_-_BPs_to_hand_over_to_other_WGs_in_W3C_or_OGC#structural_metadata 01:44:49 yaso_ has joined #sdw 01:46:23 mmiyazaki has joined #sdw 01:48:01 eparsons: updates yaso_ what the WG scope is. 01:49:30 q about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitemporal_data 01:50:40 jtandy: explains the breakdown of themes 01:51:19 ... of the BP document 01:51:59 we are now looking where these themes actually meet some of the work that has been done in the DWBP WG 01:52:34 ... kerry made a list where we feel they are happening in the DWBP : https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Theme_-_BPs_to_hand_over_to_other_WGs_in_W3C_or_OGC#structural_metadata 01:53:06 .. we need to figure out how we can work together on these subject 01:53:24 ... and if the DWBP has some spatial issues 01:53:44 yaso_: I can't remember that we have encountered any specific spatial questions 01:54:12 ... we should setup a meeting between the editors to see where we could be complementary 01:54:34 kerry: there is a Web of Things breakout tomorrow, DWBP people should attend. 01:54:40 yaso_: I'll go there 01:55:01 yaso_: we didn't cover anything around machine learning and discovery of data 01:55:42 eparsons: what would be the methodology to work together with the DWBP editors 01:56:04 jtandy: we have cited about 8 BPs from the DWBP already 01:56:34 ... we need to be sure that DWBP is aware that we are citing them 01:56:58 ... people read our spec and will be forwared to the DWBP documents 01:57:18 jtandy: we need to make sure that what you have written makes sense for our BP's as well 01:57:45 ... and see wheter we need aditional requirements in the DWBP 01:57:56 eparsons: what would be the process ? 01:58:24 yaso_: we have CR in march 01:58:55 jtandy: we need to be aware of that we cannnot change after that 01:59:16 stakagi has joined #sdw 01:59:29 eparsons: it will be normative so it will be solidified so we need to prioritize the work that relates to DWBP 02:00:11 jtandy: in early december we need to have a touchpoint to see if what we have written down matches the DWBP documents 02:00:22 q+ 02:00:33 q+ 02:00:36 ack danbri 02:00:56 danbri: how does this group + DWBP relate to LDP ? 02:01:12 yaso_: for DWBP it is not a focus for our group 02:01:13 action eparsons Arrange meeting with DWBP editors to discuss citations in early December 02:01:13 Created ACTION-87 - Arrange meeting with dwbp editors to discuss citations in early december [on Ed Parsons - due 2015-11-03]. 02:01:33 q? 02:02:20 ack next 02:02:25 Sangchul has joined #sdw 02:02:39 subtext: if neither WG end up endorsing it as a best practice for (linked) data publication, this is important feedback to W3C w.r.t. any future rechartering of the LDP effort. c.f. https://www.w3.org/wiki/Linked_Data_2015_Final_Report 02:02:44 hadleybeeman: we are aiming for REC date early July 02:04:01 kerry: there is a mention of the OGC in the DWBP document 02:04:59 hadleybeeman: there is a difference in our best practices 02:05:31 ... the spec editors here are pointing to where others have possible solutions 02:07:00 kerry: to me the citation is to vague 02:07:03 yeonsoo has joined #sdw 02:08:22 kerry: talking about: http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#MetadataStandardized 02:08:47 jtandy: we want to make sure that you are aware that we are citing your work 02:09:27 jtandy: and at some point we want to make sure that we have communicated our changes early december 02:09:38 ... our BP is a NOTE not a REC 02:10:06 hadleybeeman: it is good to know, a NOTE is more flexible. 02:10:33 danbri: is there a chance that it will be redrafted 02:10:42 kerry: absolutelly not 02:10:51 s/it/the charter 02:11:07 danbri: e.g. time ontology is too late 02:11:50 danbri: I've heard you are not doing the time ontology 02:12:11 jtandy: there is a proposal by Simon Cox to update the W3C Time ontology 02:12:32 kerry: we didn't start before we have something tangible around the BP 02:12:58 kerry: a updated timeline is on the group homepage, as stated in the charter 02:13:38 jtandy: shall we talk about the touchpoints now ? or should we coordinate a meeting when the issues arrive 02:13:56 hadleybeeman: if we have clear feedback you can pass it now, although we should not be the intermediars 02:14:32 eparsons: maybe you should inform the group about this call, and they are aware that these questions might come up 02:14:42 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Theme_-_BPs_to_hand_over_to_other_WGs_in_W3C_or_OGC 02:15:02 rrsagent, draft minutes 02:15:02 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/10/26-sdw-minutes.html eparsons 02:15:23 jtandy: these are also reachable from our main wiki page 02:15:51 jtandy: anything the DWBP wants to address now ? 02:16:07 yaso_: we are covering some issues they are covering as well 02:16:09 q? 02:16:48 ... we have not touched e.g. IOT, maybe we can also give SDW some feedback 02:17:01 ... and cite the work on Sensors 02:17:52 yaso_: we can explain publisher of sensor data that the SDW has BP's around of this type of data. 02:18:22 Topic: SVG Presentation 02:19:29 deiu has left #sdw 02:19:31 presenter: Satoru Takagi 02:19:45 Topic: SVG and CRS 02:20:28 http://www.slideshare.net/totipalmate/crs-and-svg 02:21:08 Cherif has joined #SDW 02:21:25 stakagi: in charge of the SVGWG standarization of mapping 02:21:54 stakagi: focus on map content as graphics 02:22:09 stakagi: the presentaiton is about the GAP between SVG and spatial 02:22:52 SVG coordinates are unrelated, called user coordinate sytem 02:24:50 stakagi: explains how the user CRS can be mapped on a map based on the SVG 1.1 spec 02:25:18 ... by including metadata in the SVG header 02:26:02 issue, no body is using in SVG2 it will be removed 02:26:45 s/no body/nobody/ 02:27:29 re-examintion: markup should be simpler, browsers should support CRS, concept of CRS should be generalized 02:30:34 kerry: stakagi thank you 02:31:04 ahaller2 has joined #sdw 02:31:28 kerry: about slide 13, CRS is highly controversial 02:31:38 ijongcheol has joined #sdw 02:31:44 ... we have talked about a 'General' CRS 02:32:03 ... it has been a long discussion inside the OGC 02:32:53 kerry: although we are spatial data on the web we have use cases where are not just talking about earth reference 02:33:16 kerry: we are not sure we will have a answer in your timeframe 02:33:36 jtandy: the challenge we face is that we want Spatial data easier to use on the web 02:33:55 ... most people assume that spatial data works in Google Maps 02:34:07 ... but they don't because they don't know about CRS 02:34:27 ... geospatial people are more picky on CRS choice 02:34:27 timbl has joined #sdw 02:34:47 jtandy: in our group we are aware that a CRS is important part of the data 02:34:55 ... but we discuss a default 02:35:26 jtandy: when we talk about publishing spatial data we talk about explicit mentioning CRS, or a general default 02:35:43 q? 02:36:04 kerry: you still should be able to process the default CRS 02:36:54 LarsG: there are technologies that have a default CRS already e.g. GeoJSON and WGS84 vocab is WGS84 CRS 02:37:12 LarsG: the problem is the vocabularies which don't express the default explicitly 02:37:47 jtandy: we could use that as a selection criteria 02:38:11 ... if you don't care about CRS, use a vocab that has a default. Otherwise use a vocab where you can supply 02:38:43 stakagi: we need to be able to say in SVG if it is a map, or a illustration 02:39:29 kerry: CRS is not just geospatial, for us it is clear that CRS can be used for documents as well 02:39:50 jtandy: one of our examples is Microscope slides, not spatial 02:40:06 eparsons: in OGC they call this a unprojected CRS 02:40:53 stakagi: is the naming for such a CRS acceptable 02:41:30 stakagi: is it acceptable that other none spatial applications talk about CRS ? 02:42:02 jtandy: when the spatial people talk about specific CRSs they talk about a Spatial Reference System SRS 02:42:35 eparsons: different communities have slightly different definitions what a CRS system is, we don't have a problem with that 02:43:24 kerry: there is a transformation question as well 02:43:33 eparsons: projections are very hard to transform 02:44:07 Linda: ogc describes how to describe transformation services 02:44:36 yeonsoo: is SVG about 2d or 3d ? 02:44:49 stakagi: currently is talking about 2d 02:45:03 jtandy: CRS in spatial are 3D mostly 02:46:11 jtandy: we might publish data which has elevation, SVG renders just the 2D 02:46:32 jtandy: but this is a transformation that needs to be done by the rendering engine 02:46:43 ... we don't standardize those services 02:46:50 q+ to ask about SVG + CRS in http://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-ucr/ 02:47:00 q? 02:47:11 ack next 02:47:12