IRC log of poiwg on 2011-04-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

12:58:49 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #poiwg
12:58:49 [RRSAgent]
logging to
12:58:51 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
12:58:51 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #poiwg
12:58:53 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be UW_POI
12:58:53 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot, I see UW_POI(POIWG)9:00AM already started
12:58:54 [trackbot]
Meeting: Points of Interest Working Group Teleconference
12:58:54 [trackbot]
Date: 13 April 2011
12:59:02 [matt]
zakim, dial matt-voip
12:59:02 [Zakim]
ok, matt; the call is being made
12:59:04 [Zakim]
12:59:05 [matt]
zakim, who is here?
12:59:05 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +1.919.439.aaaa, Matt (muted)
12:59:23 [matt]
zakim, aaaa is Andy
12:59:23 [Zakim]
+Andy; got it
12:59:29 [Andy]
Andy has joined #poiwg
13:00:00 [Ronald]
Ronald has joined #poiwg
13:01:04 [fons]
fons has joined #poiwg
13:01:42 [Zakim]
13:01:52 [Zakim]
+ +31.20.592.aabb
13:01:57 [Ronald]
Zakim, AZ is me
13:01:57 [Zakim]
+Ronald; got it
13:02:06 [matt]
zakim, who is on the phone?
13:02:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Andy, Matt, Ronald, +31.20.592.aabb
13:02:12 [matt]
zakim, aabb is Fons
13:02:12 [Zakim]
+Fons; got it
13:02:42 [jens]
jens has joined #poiwg
13:02:56 [Ronald]
zakim, jens is with me
13:02:56 [Zakim]
+jens; got it
13:04:02 [matt]
zakim, who is on the phone?
13:04:02 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Andy, Matt, Ronald, Fons
13:04:04 [Zakim]
Ronald has Ronald, jens
13:05:58 [Zakim]
+ +1.773.575.aacc
13:06:14 [matt]
zakim, aacc is Alex
13:06:14 [Zakim]
+Alex; got it
13:06:48 [matt]
-> Agenda
13:06:59 [matt]
matt has changed the topic to: Agenda:
13:07:10 [matt]
scribe: Matt
13:07:14 [matt]
Topic: F2F Poll
13:07:21 [vinod]
vinod has joined #poiwg
13:07:48 [matt]
-> F2F poll results
13:08:35 [matt]
Andy: Not much support for Asia meeting. Most popular was collocated with OGC and OSM in Boulder. Second was to meet in Hungary with OMA.
13:08:50 [matt]
Andy: Only problem with Boulder was that it's not until end of September.
13:09:07 [ahill2]
ahill2 has joined #poiwg
13:09:34 [matt]
Andy: If we do Boulder we need a meeting in between. Maybe have a second poll offering Denver for our 3rd and setup a f2f in between in Europe or US as there wasn't much support for Asia.
13:09:53 [matt]
Fons: What about going to Budapest meeting?
13:10:07 [matt]
Fons: It's much before September and is a very good option.
13:10:26 [matt]
ahill2: Isn't Budapest one of the most popular choices?
13:10:27 [matt]
Andy: Yes.
13:11:25 [matt]
ahill2: It looks like Budapest was second choice.
13:11:37 [matt]
Andy: It is number 2 amongst rank 1.
13:11:43 [matt]
ahill2: I can't go.
13:12:35 [matt]
Andy: We could do: Boulder and Budapest, or Boulder and TPAC. I don't think it makes sense to do TPAC and Boulder based on them being right on top of one another. Could have something informal at TPAC.
13:13:47 [matt]
matt: TPAC would be good to present, and it would be good to meet with other WGs.
13:14:24 [matt]
ACTION: Andy to find meeting location space in Budapest
13:14:24 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-60 - Find meeting location space in Budapest [on Andrew Braun - due 2011-04-20].
13:14:55 [matt]
Andy: So let's plan on Budapest and Boulder and present at TPAC.
13:14:59 [ahill2]
13:15:17 [jens]
13:15:24 [matt]
Andy: Will we be recharterting around TPAC?
13:15:27 [matt]
matt: Maybe just after.
13:15:31 [matt]
Topic: Call time poll
13:15:57 [matt]
ahill2: The favorite time seems to be Thursday at 10am EST.
13:16:01 [matt]
-> Thread on call times
13:16:19 [matt]
ahill2: Carl Reed said he could only attend every other week, but it sounds good. I asked for suggestions for other times and no one said anything.
13:16:34 [matt]
Andy: Anyone have additional times?
13:16:45 [matt]
Ronald: Thursday works fine for us.
13:16:56 [matt]
fons: Not a problem for Europe.
13:17:00 [matt]
Regrets: Jonathan
13:17:10 [matt]
Regrets+ Raj
13:17:43 [matt]
ahill2: We'll do a poll to decide between this time and the new time. If there's a flurry of activity around it, we'll see if they suggest a third time. It's not an urgent matter.
13:18:07 [matt]
ahill2: Let's do a third option of a write in.
13:18:24 [matt]
ahill2: Though maybe that doesn't get us a good response.
13:18:32 [matt]
ahill2: but since we haven't had many responses, let's do that.
13:18:47 [matt]
ACTION: matt to write up new call time poll with current time, Thursday at 10am and write in
13:18:47 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-61 - Write up new call time poll with current time, Thursday at 10am and write in [on Matt Womer - due 2011-04-20].
13:20:24 [matt]
Andy: Reminder: please update your actions! Send mail to the list if you need help, etc.
13:20:27 [matt]
13:20:27 [trackbot]
ACTION-61 -- Matt Womer to write up new call time poll with current time, Thursday at 10am and write in -- due 2011-04-20 -- OPEN
13:20:27 [trackbot]
13:20:38 [matt]
-> Open Actions
13:20:46 [matt]
13:20:46 [trackbot]
ISSUE-9 -- Is an ID required within a POI itself? -- raised
13:20:46 [trackbot]
13:21:03 [matt]
Topic: Is an ID required within the POI itself?
13:22:02 [matt]
ahill2: At the end of the f2f, we were going through the meeting minutes looking for issues and we had discussed that time and category are not required.
13:22:25 [matt]
ahill2: Making anything required is kind of a non-starter.
13:22:40 [matt]
ahill2: These issues are here for the group to check-off on and agree upon that these are not required.
13:23:17 [matt]
ahill2: Ronald had some regrets that they hadn't forced IDs.
13:24:05 [matt]
Ronald: Basically we used to have an ID field that wasn't required, but once we extended it for more features, it became more difficult when POIs didn't have unique IDs.
13:24:24 [matt]
Ronald: If you want more dynamic usage, you probably at least want to highly recommend it.
13:24:38 [matt]
ahill2: Can you give us a use case? Update? Someone creates content and then there's no handle to it?
13:25:13 [matt]
Ronald: We extended our API to give more timely updates, use in more game-like layers.
13:25:37 [matt]
Ronald: Might not want to resend all of the data again.
13:25:49 [matt]
ahill2: We had a similar problem, but can't you create unique id's under the hood?
13:26:23 [matt]
Ronald: For some cases yes. But the developer is really kind of outside of our system. Auto-generated IDs doesn't necessarily solve it.
13:26:48 [matt]
ahill2: Is it possible in that scenario that someone could not populate the field but be assigned an ID and then they could refer back to that?
13:27:33 [matt]
Ronald: It doesn't really solve the issue, as the ID is still there, just system generated.
13:27:51 [matt]
jens: Yes, then it would just mean the system has to generate the ID.
13:28:03 [jens]
13:28:32 [matt]
ahill2: At some point we'll talk about label. I can't help but wonder if we didn't have a name or an ID that you'd have some real trouble in a practical situation.
13:29:08 [matt]
ahill2: Is it possible that this could be an implementation specific restriction? Meaning that for your system you need the ability to set IDs and enforce that users create them, then does it make sense that a data format for POIs require an ID?
13:29:19 [matt]
Ronald: I think I could live with that.
13:29:56 [matt]
Ronald: It puts some restrictions on the type of communication channels a bit. For instance if a document contains all POIs for ever, then yes, you don't have to require ID. So recommended but not mandatory.
13:30:18 [matt]
ahill2: Isn't this analogous to the current Web practices?
13:30:50 [matt]
jens: True. What we see currently is that you write a page and then later want to give a reference to it, you then have to go back and add an ID.
13:31:09 [matt]
jens: But, I can also see a use case where providing IDs is superfluous or too much trouble.
13:32:22 [matt]
ahill2: There's been some discussion about possible change in our focus to more of a service architecture for POIs. Meaning that if there's no registry or service architecture to deliver them then it may not be of value.
13:32:44 [matt]
ahill2: How does that change our view of IDs?
13:33:11 [matt]
ahill2: In other words having a document vs a global way to refer to them.
13:33:33 [matt]
ahill2: If you don't have a URI and an ID there's just no getting a POI in a Web architecture. Any comment on that?
13:33:49 [matt]
Ronald: Is a POI only a POI if it is available in a reference system or is a POI a POI itself?
13:34:29 [matt]
ahill2: Sure, POIs can exist, people will put them in a file and click on them locally and they probably won't have an ID, but does anyone have anything intelligent to say about how a service architecture and building one and specifying one would change this view?
13:34:33 [matt]
ahill2: I lean towards we can't really require it.
13:35:23 [Andy]
+1 to matt
13:35:32 [Ronald]
13:35:40 [fons]
13:35:43 [matt]
matt: Seems to me that if you're looking at building a standalone document you don't need IDs. If you're building a linked format in a Web architecture then you do. We're doing both, so it maybe should be a SHOULD rather than a MUST.
13:36:39 [matt]
jens: I suggest we go with not requiring IDs, but having a recommendation to readers of the spec that having IDs is a good idea in many situations for future proofing your data and such. Advice on using an ID if you can.
13:36:56 [matt]
jens: "If you are making your data available use an ID"
13:37:04 [matt]
fons: Might be a good argument to say that it might help performance.
13:37:07 [matt]
jens: Yep!
13:37:49 [matt]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: IDs are not required, but are recommended. The spec will provide some advice on situations where they should and should not be used.
13:38:03 [matt]
ACTION: jens to provide text about the virtue of using IDs
13:38:03 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-62 - Provide text about the virtue of using IDs [on Jens de Smit - due 2011-04-20].
13:38:21 [matt]
Topic: Are labels required?
13:38:24 [matt]
13:38:24 [trackbot]
ISSUE-10 -- Should we require a label for POIs? -- raised
13:38:24 [trackbot]
13:39:07 [matt]
ahill2: At the F2F we resolved to rename 'name' to 'label'.
13:39:25 [matt]
-> F2F minutes on label
13:41:23 [matt]
ahill2: With labels being textual descriptions (rather than IDs) are these an option where you can imagine a situation where someone is rendering an image and doesn't care if there's a label. Basically a POI is some place in the world and some thing, which could be a label or a model or an SVG or whatever.
13:42:06 [matt]
ahill2: You could argue that it is not required, but like IDs if you take it out of your system, you look at a list of POIs, and there could be a bunch that have no names. That obviously hurts the usability. It's similar to not having an ID. At times it will matter, and at times it won't.
13:42:33 [matt]
jens: Then I propose a similar resolution as we used for IDs.
13:43:37 [matt]
jens: Basically if there is no virtue to having a label don't use it. So, not a requirement, but recommended in many many use cases. As advice to the reader, even if they aren't being used. It is similar to alt attributes in HTML.
13:44:07 [ahill2]
+1 to jens comment
13:44:17 [Ronald]
13:44:22 [matt]
jens: I think the same argument as alt labels. If you can provide meaningful text, you should.
13:44:30 [matt]
jens: Have text explaining the virtue of labels.
13:44:47 [fons]
+1 robots can search for them as well
13:44:51 [matt]
ACTION: ahill2 to put text in the draft summarizing the discussion of labels thus far
13:44:51 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-63 - Put text in the draft summarizing the discussion of labels thus far [on Alex Hill - due 2011-04-20].
13:44:57 [jens]
good suggestion fons
13:45:02 [matt]
+10 :)
13:45:29 [ahill2]
13:45:56 [matt]
Andy: So this closes those two issues. Let's pick another one to move on to.
13:46:13 [matt]
13:46:13 [trackbot]
ISSUE-2 -- Organisations versus places: should POI core spec say how to distinguish these? -- raised
13:46:13 [trackbot]
13:46:22 [Andy]
13:46:23 [matt]
Topic: Organizations versus places
13:47:14 [matt]
ahill2: This is concepts vs places/things?
13:47:36 [matt]
Andy: That was my impression, vs ISSUE-3 which is more about families of POIs.
13:47:49 [matt]
ahill2: These are somewhat similar to me. About the scope of what we are describing.
13:48:35 [matt]
-> Origin of ISSUE-2
13:49:05 [matt]
ahill2: Does this spec describe things that are not physical? Legal entities? Government bodies? They're not physical, but are they POIs?
13:49:21 [matt]
ahill2: Do they violate the fundamental thing about "some information linked to some physical location in the world?"
13:49:36 [matt]
Andy: I would say it does violate that.
13:50:20 [matt]
Andy: But I think I do support this sort of structure in the POI spec. Just from a relationship standpoint. Maybe we need to answer some relationship questions first.
13:50:58 [matt]
ahill2: There's also the argument about unknown locations. We've talked about POIs if they can't get narrowed down to WGS84, that they're at least on the earth.
13:51:31 [matt]
ahill2: It is possible that you could assign locations to things that aren't very meaningful, but given relationships, there would be value in it.
13:52:39 [matt]
ahill2: A lot of this is facilitated in some way by categories. If you have schemes then you have a form of relationships -- but this ends up going down a slippery slope of describing everything.
13:54:35 [matt]
Ronald: I think "describing everything", as long as it has a way to tie to the real world, could be part of the POI spec, but ??? is out of scope. Then we would look to the semantic web to describe those kind of things.
13:55:04 [matt]
ahill2: I could imagine you wanting to link to concepts, e.g. McDonalds. You might want to link a bunch of physical McDonalds locations to that. Is that concept a POI?
13:55:24 [matt]
ahill2: Does it have to be in order for the linkages to be made? Probably not.
13:55:58 [matt]
ahill2: There are plenty of ontologies and databases built to describe concepts. They don't necessarily need to be grounded in a physical location. They will need to persist and have unique IDs, but do they have to be a POI? I don't think so.
13:56:04 [Andy]
13:56:24 [matt]
Ronald: I think we're on the same page. We should allow links to other kinds of data, not just to POIs.
13:56:34 [matt]
Ronald: I think concepts are not POIs.
13:57:17 [matt]
ahill2: Let's not resolve this on this call, but that restriction of POIs as something that you would want to locate and tie to something geospatial in nature -- that may be something we want to resolve. That would give us some clarity moving forward.
13:57:58 [matt]
Andy: Let's start an email thread about it and talk about it at the next meeting.
13:58:26 [matt]
ahill2: That sounds like a good idea from a strategic standpoint. I think sometimes people think that the minutes require them to consume the whole meeting. i think it is valuable to break the issues out into email threads.
13:58:27 [Andy]
13:58:33 [Andy]
Andy will take it
13:59:21 [matt]
andy: I'll take an action item for this.
13:59:27 [matt]
Topic: Wrap up
13:59:37 [matt]
Andy: We've had a few resolutions and actions.
13:59:45 [matt]
Andy: Just wanted to mention that the Geo group has a new charter, check it out:
13:59:50 [Zakim]
13:59:51 [Zakim]
13:59:52 [Zakim]
13:59:56 [Zakim]
13:59:59 [matt]
-> Geolocation charter
14:00:02 [matt]
zakim, drop me
14:00:02 [Zakim]
Matt is being disconnected
14:00:03 [Zakim]
UW_POI(POIWG)9:00AM has ended
14:00:05 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.919.439.aaaa, Matt, Andy, +31.20.592.aabb, Ronald, Fons, jens, +1.773.575.aacc, Alex
14:00:33 [matt]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:00:33 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate matt
14:33:54 [fons]
fons has left #poiwg
16:08:24 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #poiwg