- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 15:07:13 +0100
- To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
The minutes of today's meeting are at
http://www.w3.org/2015/06/03-sdw-minutes
A text summary is copied below.
Main issues discussed today:
- resolution to publish the UCR as an FPWD, subject to Frans and
Alejandro adding in links to issues in the tracker.
- Simon and Ed to discuss how to handle publication from OGC
perspective. Expectation is that we'll synchronise publication by both
SDOs after the 3 week period that is part of the OGC process - but note
that OGC does not have a direct equivalent of W3C's FPWD.
- Formal and informal thanks expressed to Frans and Alejandro.
- If you like being the recipient of much thanks and praise, please
consider volunteering as an editor of the BP document to which attention
will turn starting next week.
Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
03 Jun 2015
[2]Agenda
[2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150603
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2015/06/03-sdw-irc
Attendees
Present
kerry, Rachel, aharth, Alejandro_Llaves, billrobets,
billroberts, PhilA, LarsG, MattPerry, eparsons,
ChrisLittle, SImonCox, jtandy, Linda, Frans, IanHolt
Regrets
Antoine_Zimmermann, Andrea, Philippe_Thiran,
Clemens_Portele, Josh, Lieberman phillipe
Chair
Ed
Scribe
phila
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Status of the UCR
o [6]FPWD resolution
2. [7]OGC Publication Process Synchronising
3. [8]Next Steps - the Best Practice Document
* [9]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 03 June 2015
<eparsons> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group
Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 03 June 2015
Meeting URL is at
[10]https://mit.webex.com/mit/e.php?MTID=mc00ef4269f70cf6d524a1
eafc14142da
[10]
https://mit.webex.com/mit/e.php?MTID=mc00ef4269f70cf6d524a1eafc14142da
<Frans> Still working on audio...
<IanHolt> Trying to fix audio this end
<SimonCox> pathetic
<SimonCox> 4th floor
<scribe> scribe: phila
<scribe> scribeNick: phila
<SimonCox> I recall in the 1970s the Met Office tried to come
up with a catchy little ditty to explain Celsius.
<SimonCox> 5, 10 and 21 - Winter Spring and Summer Sun (!)
ed: Recalls last week's minutes
eparsons: recalls the OGC Patent Call
<kerry>
[11]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jun/
0003.html
[11]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jun/0003.html
PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes, such as they are, see
[12]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jun/
0003.html
[12]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jun/0003.html
<jtandy> +1
<ChrisLittle> and even I was not at Met Office
<eparsons> +1
<kerry> +1
<billroberts> +1
+1
<Linda> +1
<MattPerry> +1
<ChrisLittle> +1 minutes
RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes, such as they are, see
[13]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jun/
0003.html
[13]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jun/0003.html
Status of the UCR
eparsons: Main order of business today is progress with UCR.
Next step is to make it a First Public Working Draft
->
[14]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirement
s.html Editor's draft
[14] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html
eparsons: It's a formal step. You need to be happy with the doc
as it stands. It's not final of course
... we're saying to the world, here it is, come and take a look
and see how we're doing, how we're thinking
<ChrisLittle> +2 to Alejandro, Frans
<Alejandro_Llaves> Thanks! :)
<Linda> Yes very nice work Frans and Alejandro!
phila: Gives a bit more background
eparsons: Asks for any further points?
billroberts: Thanks Frans and Alejandro
... I see an e-mail question Frans raised about spatial
relations etc.
... Frans had suggested a modified form of that requirement
... I just wanted to know what the status of the editing
process is
... are there still things to be done or is the doc as it is
the version we're going to publish?
eparsons: good point. It's not saying it's complete and that
there are no ongoing issues. It's "we're mostly happy for it to
be discussed in public"
Frans: This is an example of one of the many issues to be
resolved
... the UCR has a broad scope. There are many differnet
subjects and issues that need to be processed
... some subjects hairly, some simple
... but they haven't all be processed yet
... what i want to achieve is that we don't overlook anythiung
that still needs to be processed
... Alejandro_Llaves wanted to flag the remaining issues and
associate them in the UCR
... if there is time for that, that's a final thing we could do
before it reached FPWD status
<Alejandro_Llaves> +q
Frans: at least have some kind of completeness - the idea that
we have eveything in our sights.
... For some of our reqs we haven't found the optimal phrasing
yet
jtandy: Before we move to FPWD, I think we should definitely
reference the issues in our tracker
... It says "we know there's still some stuff outdstanding
here"
... so people don't ask us why we're not thinkinbg about
something that we are
<Linda> +1 to referencing issues
eparsons: So what concrete steps do we need to take?
<jtandy> [15]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues
[15] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues
jtandy: If we look at the issue sin the tracker, we need to add
a para using the issues CSS class, to link to that
... I have a link that describes how to do that
eparsons: So this is a further steo for the editos do to over
the coming days
<jtandy> see discussion in email thread
[16]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jun/
0033.html
[16]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jun/0033.html
Frans: I agree with that course of action
... If we are meant to vote on the doc, do we still have time
to put those issues in?
phila: Yes
<Rachel> +1 to referencing issues within the UCR document
<kerry> +1 to caveat as discussed
Frans: That's nice, thanks
... It's easier for WG members to check if their issue in in
the tracker than if it is in the doc correctly
eparsons: We might have an opportunity to do this as we may
want to sync OGC and W3C publishing - which takes 3 weeks+ -
next agendum!
Alejandro_Llaves: I wanted to say that Jeremy's suggestion is
good. He gave example of how this has been done elsewhere. We
committed to having the issues integrated in the doc
... But we need to recognise the massive number of e-mails in
the last few weeks
... So we'll work on the cross linking
... I'm fine with voting today, accounting for still adding the
issues.
... but I would ask not to add new issues until we've done that
... or there will never be an FPWD
eparsons: That seems fair
<Zakim> kerry, you wanted to speak on what about new issues
from here on?
eparsons: Assuming we don't vote today, no new issues until
tracker items have been integrated.
kerry: My comments was closely related.
... What do we do about issues still in people's heads but not
in the tracker?
... I guess the answer is, keep them in your head and hold off
for now
... maybe we should announce the issue(s) we're going to work
on for each meeting
Linda: What about issues that were raised by e-mail but that
are not yet in the tracker?
Frans: We'll put them in the tracker
... and link from the UCR
... so that we can check for completeness.
Linda: So are you going to do that or should I do that for my
issues?
Frans: Dunno if Alejandro_Llaves agrees, but the editors can
make a start
<Alejandro_Llaves> +q
Frans: The editors should have a good overview of outstanding
issues
Alejandro_Llaves: I'm fine with that as a first procedure for
now
... But in future, as all Wg memebrs have access to the
tracker, and we have explained how to use it, I think it would
be easier for that individual to describe their issues in the
tracker
... Otherwise we end up exhanging e-mails and they're not
tracked
phila: Takes an action to check the tracker config to start
e-mails being sent when new issues are raised.
eparsons: So let's think in terms of a moritorium on issues
betwene now and FPWD
<eparsons> PROPOSED : Move the UCR document to First Public
Working Draft
eparsons: Any more issues?
Frans: Thinking about what's next... the fact that the UCR
isn't finished, shouldn't stop the next thing being worked on
eparsons: No
PROPOSED: Move the UCR document to First Public Working Draft,
subject to issues in tracker being linked
<jtandy> +1 subject to caveat that ISSUES in the tracker are
represented in the UCR doc prior to its FPWD publication ...
UCR doc is _good enough_ for FPWD
<eparsons> +1
<Linda> +1
<kerry> +1
<Rachel> +1
+1
<MattPerry> +1
<Frans> +1
<billroberts> +1
<stlemme> +1
<SimonCox> +1
<ChrisLittle> +1
RESOLUTION: Move the UCR document to First Public Working
Draft, subject to issues in tracker being linked
<LarsG> +1
<cperey> +1
<ahaller2> +1
<IanHolt> +1
<SimonCox> (and actual publication subject to OGC mechanics
too)
<Alejandro_Llaves> +1
<kerry> +q
eparsons: Thanks to everyone, especially the editors
kerry: I was thought it might be time to propose a formal vote
of thanks to our editors
<ChrisLittle> +1
<jtandy> +1
<SimonCox> sound of hands clapping
PROPOSED: Thanks to Frans and Alejandro
<eparsons> +1
<LarsG> +1
<kerry> +1
<Rachel> +1
<stlemme> +1
<IanHolt> +1
<billroberts> +1
<ahaller2> +1
<MattPerry> +1 Thanks to Frans and Alejandro
<Linda> +1
+1
RESOLUTION: Thanks to Frans and Alejandro
OGC Publication Process Synchronising
eparsons: How do we take this forward in OGC.
... There is not complete overlap between the two SDOs
... there is no equivalent in OGC to a W3C FPWD
<SimonCox> Or 'Discussion Paper'
eparsons: I think an Engineering Report is the closest thing
OGC has
<jtandy> thinks that this is not an engineering report- there's
no engineering!
eparsons: The chairs put it in a pending folder and asks for a
vote that lasts >= 3 weeks
... If no objection, it moves to published
<SimonCox> DP = early technology
eparsons: maybe discussion paper is better, but this is quite a
tech document
<SimonCox> Eng Report = result of testbed
<Frans> A white paper?
eparsons: We'll talk with OGC colleagues here in Boulder to
decide but is that 3 week window OK for everyone?
<SimonCox> Neither is a formal 'OGC position' - essentially
"FYI"
jtandy: It's important that people in OGC world know that this
is in no way finished
... Typically, the 3 week process at OGC means the doc is
finished?
... We need to convey that it's open to change
<Linda> Agrees with Simon - sounds most like a discussion paper
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask about syncing or not
eparsons: The alternative is not to publish at OGC until it's
finished
SimonCox: The status of Eng Rep or Discussion, are both FYI,
not an endorsed product, That's well understood within the OGC
... They're choosing to publish because they think it's of
interest to the community but no more.
eparsons: So what's your suggestion?
SimonCox: I'm not sure that the process outlined is entirely
correct.
... In the case of docs that are not formal positions of OGC,
it can be informal, maybe just a show of hands at a TC plenary.
... We could perhaps have had that if the doc had been
available 3 weeks ago.
... but it'll be a bit more cumbersome.
eparsons: My suggestion was that the GeoSemantics DWG could
organise the vote?
SimonCox: I'll look into the details of that. We may need a
formal resolution of that group this week.
<kerry> +q
SimonCox: The OGC approach in general is that no doc goes
forward if it hasn't been available to the relevant part of the
OGC community for at least 3 weeks
<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask if the introduction section
of the OGC doc can include a statement about FPWD?
SimonCox: I'll help check the details today.
jtandy: I wanted to suggest... I'm happy with a discussion doc
going through the 3 week rule. Maybe we can include a cover
sheet on that to explain what an FPWD is
eparsons: Yes, we should.
SimonCox: Isn't that form of words included in the doc?
jtandy: Yes, but it will be unfamiliar to OGC folks so a bit
more explanation of how to get involved etc. might be useful.
kerry: Just a tech question... you mentioned having a vote in
the geoSemantics - haven't we effectively just done that?
SimonCox: This is a sub group, not the full group. I'd be
reluctant to take that short cut.
eparsons: We've doubled the democratic process, not halved it,
but doing things together.
<Alejandro_Llaves> +q
<scribe> ACTION: eparsons to talk to other memebers of the OGC
GeoSemantics DWG about this and try and take this forward as
rapidly as possible. [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2015/06/03-sdw-minutes.html#action01]
[17] http://www.w3.org/2015/06/03-sdw-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-49 - Talk to other members of the ogc
geosemantics dwg about this and try and take this forward as
rapidly as possible. [on Ed Parsons - due 2015-06-10].
<jtandy> +1
eparsons: That means we don't go gthrough the W3C process until
we've been through the OGC process?
<kerry> +1
<Alejandro_Llaves> +1
<Linda> +1
General Agreement
<Rachel> +1
<IanHolt> +1
<ChrisLittle> +1
<SimonCox>
[18]http://docs.opengeospatial.org/pol/05-020r20/05-020r20.html
#24
[18] http://docs.opengeospatial.org/pol/05-020r20/05-020r20.html#24
Alejandro_Llaves: Do we have a template to add to the document?
(Simon points to it)
jtandy: Presumably the OGC publication is a PDF doc, not a Web
page
SimonCox: All new docs at OGC are now published as HTML pages
jtandy: So can we take our HTML doc and push it into the OGC
template?
<Frans> There already is a (standard) paragraph ¨Status of This
Document¨
SimonCox: I don't think that's appropriate, we can leave it as
it is.
eparsons: So maybe we just add a paragraph to the document
<SimonCox> From OGC P&P:"The votes that may occur at a DWG are:
Move to release an Engineering Report as a Discussion Paper"
<SimonCox> "All of these motions and DWG are recommendations to
the full TC."
phila: Can we predict a date (Tues or Thurs) for publication?
SimonCox: We may know by the end of the day
... I've been looking at the OGC policies. And I think it means
that the 3 week rule applies if no one objects?
... Ed and I will talk to Scott today
<scribe> ACTION: Simon to work with Ed to come up with the
wording to describe to the OGC community what FPWD means
[recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2015/06/03-sdw-minutes.html#action02]
[19] http://www.w3.org/2015/06/03-sdw-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-50 - Work with ed to come up with the
wording to describe to the ogc community what fpwd means [on
Simon Cox - due 2015-06-10].
<ChrisLittle> bye, sorry - have to go to another OGC WG,
requiring spatial transfer
eparsons: Let's close this off then...
Next Steps - the Best Practice Document
eparsons: The BP doc is going to be the biggest thing we focus
on for the remaindxer of the year
... We want to look at current activities as being the
best/easiest way to make spatial data available on the Web in a
form that is Linked/Linkable
<Alejandro_Llaves> + 1
eparsons: We are still looking for editors.
... The UCR describes the problem space and the BP doc is a
large part of the solution.
... We are looking for editors. Speak now or contact me, Phil
or Kerry
Frans: I'm trying to look - I think we had a partial volunteer.
Someone who said they'd look at an overview of current
software. It's somehwre in an e-mail
<kerry> +q
eparsons: Please think about that and volunteer if you can. Or
we'll start knocking on your door.
kerry: I wanted to point to issue-6
issue-6?
<trackbot> issue-6 -- That our primary goal is to develop 5
star linked spatial data -- raised
<trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/6
[20] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/6
kerry: I think this raises an important point. It was raised as
a principles doscussion. Can we discuss it now or soon?
<jtandy> +1
kerry: I would vote in favour, but I'm not sure that everyone
would.
<jtandy> (we will need to bottom this out ... )
eparsons: I agree that, yes, we need to discuss that and see
what the BP doc is going to achieve, how to frame it etc.
kerry: I think that's a particularly critical one.
Frans: I'm looking at the charter now. It says the WG will
promote LD using the 5 star paradigm, but will not exclude
other methods.
eparsons: Let's park that for today but it could be on next
week's agenda.
<Alejandro_Llaves> +q
eparsons: Any final questions or are we done?
<Rachel> [the email was from Lewis McGibbney, he offered to
lead/co-lead a review and understanding of existing spatial
markup vocabularies.]
Alejandro_Llaves: We editors have the task of adding the issues
ot the doc in the next days. There are some issues related
directkly to requirements, others are not.
<kerry> leave them out!
What about issues that are not related like the one Kerry
raised?
<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to say thanks to Frans &
Alejandro_Llaves
eparsons: Leave them out.
jtandy: I just wanted to thank Frans and Alejandro
<cperey> excellent work everyone!
<cperey> thank you!
eparsons: Wraps up the meeting.
... Next week we start movng forward on the BP doc
<Alejandro_Llaves> thanks to all! Bye
<Linda> thanks bu
<eparsons> bye
<MattPerry> bye
<Rachel> bye, thank all
<Linda> bye!
<billroberts> bye, thanks
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: eparsons to talk to other memebers of the OGC
GeoSemantics DWG about this and try and take this forward as
rapidly as possible. [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2015/06/03-sdw-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Simon to work with Ed to come up with the wording
to describe to the OGC community what FPWD means [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2015/06/03-sdw-minutes.html#action02]
[21] http://www.w3.org/2015/06/03-sdw-minutes.html#action01
[22] http://www.w3.org/2015/06/03-sdw-minutes.html#action02
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2015 14:07:02 UTC