Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

<ChrisLittle> * great that JT is target driven!

<kerry> regrets billroberts, jonblower, clemensportele, lindavandenbrink, frans

<ChrisLittle> * I see 8 on IRC

<joshlieberman> The OGC abstract specs are here: http://www.opengeospatial.org/docs/as

http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/

<scribe> scribe: phila

<kerry> scribe: phila

<scribe> scribeNick: phila

Approving last week's minutes

<jtandy> that's TPAC right?

approve minutes http://www.w3.org/2016/09/14-sdw-minutes.html

<jtandy> yes

<ByronCinNZ> +1

<jtandy> yes the meeting was short - I remember Linda saying so

RESOLUTION: approve minutes

<ChrisLittle> +0 not present

<jtandy> +0 (not there myself)

phila: Meeting was only 15 minutes on 14/9
... Shall we approve TPAC minutes

<joshlieberman> +0 not present for either

phila: Minutes of 14 Sept so trivial, not an issue

-> https://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-sdw-minutes.html TPAC Day 1

-> https://www.w3.org/2016/09/20-sdw-minutes.html Day 2

phila: Some of my scribing around SSN was not good.

<AndreaPerego> Same issue with mine about the joint meeting with WoT IG

kerry: Anyone have an opinion?
... Day 1 was approved on day 2

approve day 2 tpac minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/09/20-sdw-minutes.html

kerry: Not appropriate to reapprove them here
... Any comments on day 2

joshlieberman: Procedural issue - I'm a little disappointed that the meetings were at the same time (TPAC and OGC)
... So it was not possible for a number of us to attend the TPAC F2F.
... It would be helpful therefore to revisit some of the decisions taken at TPAC. Not to overturn, but to reaffirm them.
... Don't know what the procedure might be.

kerry: I'm sympathetic, but there are always meetings one can't attend where decisions are taken. I'm often in that position myself.
... It's possible to re-look at a decision, but I don't think we can nobble our decision making process. In last week's SSN meeting, we went through those SSN decisions in Lisbon
... Yes, we can't all attend al the meetings all the time

phila: Can I suggest you look at the resolutions from TPAC and raise issues if you think it necessary.
... Rambles on about raising issues and wanting everyone to be happy.

kerry: We always ask for agenda items. Please let me know if you want an issue on an agenda.

joshlieberman: So it sounds like the best thing is to raise an issue?
... That can then serve as an agenda item.

kerry: Yes, but please also ask for it to be put on an agenda at a time that suits you.

<ChrisLittle> NOTUC

<kerry> resolve: approve minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/09/20-sdw-minutes.html

joshlieberman: OGC has the concept of No Objections To Unanimous Consent (NOTUC)

<kerry> patent call: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

RESOLUTION: There being NOTUC, minutes of TPAC Day 2 are approved.

Changing time zones: proposed next plenary and following fortnights at 19th October 2016 20:00 GMT i.e http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=SDWWG+Call&iso=20161019T20&p1=1440&ah=1 (this is returning to the schedule for the opposite season we used at the beginning of the year. Please be prepared to suggest alternatives if you wish but staying as now is not an option, as this week's meeting starts at midnight in eastern Australia.)

kerry: Time zones are changing for the opposite seasons. It's 00:24 tomorrow here in Canberra.

<ChrisLittle> +1 to new time

kerry: So my suggestion is for plenary meetings to start at 20:00 UTC as of 2 weeks' time.

<ByronCinNZ> Big +1 from me

+1 from me, it's what we're use to. Let's move on

<jtandy> +1

<MattPerry> +1 from me

<AndreaPerego> +1

<joshlieberman> +1

phila: Notes that it's 01:26 tomorrow for ByronCinNZ

jtandy: That's the time for plenary call. The sub groups will continue at the time that makes sense to them.

kerry: Confirmed

<kerry> +1

kerry: The change *only* applies to the plenary calls

<jtandy> thank you

RESOLUTION: Changing time zones: proposed next plenary and following fortnights at 19th October 2016 20:00 GMT i.e http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=SDWWG+Call&iso=20161019T20&p1=1440&ah=1

RESOLUTION: Plenary meetings (only) will move to 20:00 UTC as of 19 October

RESOLUTION: Daylight savings is a terrible idea.

<ChrisLittle> * UTC rules!

phila: makes general warwning about DST not having ended on 19/10 in Europe and US

Next PWD of UCR coming very soon

kerry: We did some final issue closing at TPAC
... Frans has since actioned those changes and made some cosmetic changes
... He posted on the list along the lines of "we're ready to go"
... So we're looking for approval in 2 weeks' time to go ahead and publish. We expect this to be the final version.
... This is an OCG Discussion Paper/W3C Note

Next PWD of BP coming very soon

phila: No process issues here. WG has 2 weeks to review.

kerry: State of gthe BP doc is that it has changed a lot since the previous public WD. Not yet complete, but has progressed a lot.
... We propose similarly that it will be ready for a public WD that we can vote on during 19/10 meeting
... What's the stability, Jeremy?

jtandy: All the actions that we agreed on the end of the 1st day *except* phila's bits
... Bill is working on the glossary and hopes to have it done my Monday, or it will have to wait until next iteration.
... I'm incorporating Payam's changes on CRSs now

phila: I'm working on it now. Will complete immediately after this meeting.

<scribe> ... Pending Bill's glossary updates.

kerry: So if you, Jeremy, can write to the list when it's ready?

jtandy: I will email the list when we're good to go.

kerry: So I invite everyone to look at it as soon as Jeremy sends that mail.Expcet to vote in 2 week's time.

INSPIRE (Ed? Clemens? Andrea?)

<AndreaPerego> I would add an item in the agenda of the next call.

kerry: So... with relevant people absent... Oh... Andrea *is* here...

AndreaPerego: The problem is that I wasn't there. It was Ed and Clemens

kerry: OK, we'll bring it back to another agenda.

AOB

kerry: Anyone have anything (I do)

<jtandy> nothing from me

kerry: So can I talk about HTTPS?

https namespaces

kerry: The issue is for the time ontology and SSN et al...
... the question is about the transition to TLS and what that means for an ontology.
... My view was that is your namepsace is new, you may as well take the opportunity to move to https
... It's only been there for the lifetime of this group.
... I understood the advice to be to use HTTPS if you're starting anew.
... It affects the group more broadly

<joshlieberman> Can a webserver not redirect http to https?

<joshlieberman> The user agent needs the root cert in order to accept an https connection...

phila: Maxime raised this at https://github.com/perma-id/w3id.org/issues/528

joshlieberman: There's no difference in terms of a URI in terms of an id, it's when you treat it as a URL that issues arise.
... Yes, https is good but there are issues around what the process is, what the authentication mechanism is etc.
... So I argue for http URIs, provided that the server will upgrade to https if supported.

phila: That's what we say too, yes.
... Stick with http and let the smarts handle it - until we have https everywhere.

kerry: I'm willing to go with the flow, but it still seems more rational to me to go for https as we have the opportunity to do so.
... The downside is, if you want a secure resolution... willing to take advice. Looks like the advice is to use http for now

<ChrisLittle> +1 for HTTP

PROPOSED: That our vocabularies use HTTP URIs as namespaces

<DanhLePhuoc> +1 for HTTP

<jtandy> +1

<kerry> +1

<ByronCinNZ> +1

+1

<joshlieberman> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

<ClausStadler> +1

RESOLUTION: That our vocabularies use HTTP URIs as namespaces

<ChrisLittle> No

<kerry> aob?

kerry: Any other other business?

<jtandy> me says thanks!

<joshlieberman> Phila - now that I've looked at your posts re: HTTP, thanks for letting me parrot them

<AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!

[Adjourned]

<joshlieberman> bye

<kerry> bye!

<ByronCinNZ> bye

<ChrisLittle> Bye