12:39:06 RRSAgent has joined #sdw 12:39:06 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/04/29-sdw-irc 12:39:08 RRSAgent, make logs world 12:39:08 Zakim has joined #sdw 12:39:10 Zakim, this will be SDW 12:39:10 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 12:39:11 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference 12:39:11 Date: 29 April 2015 12:40:21 regrets+ Rachel, Antoine, Alejandro Llaves, LarsG, Andrea Perego, Stefan Lemme, Clemens Portele, Matthew Perry 12:54:33 billroberts has joined #sdw 12:55:08 eparsons has joined #sdw 12:56:44 Linda has joined #sdw 12:57:11 ahaller2 has joined #sdw 12:58:32 jtandy has joined #sdw 12:59:33 Frans has joined #sdw 12:59:59 eparsons - will you be WebEx meeting host as you're chairing? 13:00:09 ebremer has joined #sdw 13:00:24 Yes I'm chair 13:00:43 dmisev has joined #sdw 13:01:03 Jitao has joined #sdw 13:01:06 i can not connect over phone 13:01:11 me either 13:01:21 Ian_Holt has joined #sdw 13:01:45 aharth has joined #sdw 13:01:49 Do not connect on the phone - see agenda for WebEx details 13:02:02 https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m5d4e15eeb4c638daf43240722dd1490c 13:02:28 WebEx for audio https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m5d4e15eeb4c638daf43240722dd1490c 13:02:30 WebEx for audio https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m5d4e15eeb4c638daf43240722dd1490c 13:02:31 WebEx for audio https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m5d4e15eeb4c638daf43240722dd1490c 13:02:32 WebEx for audio https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m5d4e15eeb4c638daf43240722dd1490c 13:02:33 WebEx for audio https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m5d4e15eeb4c638daf43240722dd1490c 13:02:34 WebEx for audio https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m5d4e15eeb4c638daf43240722dd1490c 13:02:34 WebEx for audio https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m5d4e15eeb4c638daf43240722dd1490c 13:03:14 Ashok_Malhotra has joined #sdw 13:03:21 webex does not support my browser 13:03:49 Kerry sounds much clearer now! 13:05:28 Do I still need to let zakim know who I am? 13:06:02 No zakim does not know which audio you are.. 13:06:25 me too 13:06:33 it is nt me! I can still hear it! 13:07:23 me too 13:07:25 andreas -- zakim is retiring 13:07:43 pity, i liked zakim 13:08:17 Aharth - I seem to have much better audio now 13:09:14 frans: i should probably switch to windows... webex does not like linux 13:10:02 ChrisLittle has joined #sdw 13:11:10 http://www.w3.org/2015/04/22-sdw-minutes.html 13:11:17 PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes 13:11:19 +1 13:11:20 +1 minutes 13:11:22 +1 13:11:22 +1 13:11:24 +1 13:11:24 +1 13:11:27 +1 13:11:30 +1 13:11:33 +1 13:11:33 my regrets were not recorded, but +1 13:11:38 RESOLVED: Accept last week's minutes 13:11:38 +1 13:11:54 scribe: Jeremy Tandy 13:11:59 scribenick: jtandy 13:12:20 eparsons: no new members this week - but asks anyway 13:12:37 phila: dmisev? 13:12:58 dmisev: I am from Jacobs Univ in Bremen - representing Peter Bauman 13:13:08 eparsons: will this be regualr? 13:13:16 s/regulr/regular/ 13:13:21 dmisev: yes 13:13:29 eparsons: the only issue on the agenda 13:13:30 I've added your regrets to last week's minutes, aharth 13:13:47 eparsons: other than use of webex is 13:14:24 ... principles - the broad over arching goals behind the best practice doc ... 13:14:38 q+ webex 13:14:41 ... the non-functional requirements 13:14:58 eparsons: regarding webex - suggest we learn as we go along 13:15:01 q? 13:15:03 Main agenda for this meeting: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150429#Main_agenda 13:15:10 ... which is best in IRC, which is best in webex etc 13:15:20 q+ 13:15:26 q- webex 13:15:26 kerry: one advantage of webex is that we can share presentations etc. 13:15:33 eparsons: [agrees] 13:15:55 eparsons: there's also the whiteboard - but we couldn't figure out how to make that work 13:15:59 ack me 13:16:31 phila: just to clarify from W3 pov ... happy to use webex but use of IRC is W3 policy ... this is where the minutes are 13:16:44 eparsons: agreed ... and we record the actions in IRC too 13:17:01 eparsons: OK - to the main point of business 13:17:09 So we should ignore the Raise Hand button in WebEx? 13:17:21 ... getting to the point where we can work on the best practice doc 13:17:38 we should, redundant to IRC 13:17:46 eparsons: before we start the BP doc we need to determine _what_ we want to achieve 13:17:48 q+ 13:17:53 ... not how to achieve that 13:17:55 ack next 13:19:06 Frans: the principles could be the same as the non-functional requirements - 13:19:08 q+ 13:19:18 ... but non-functional req are more about how than what 13:19:45 eparsons: from my pov - I want to get a common understanding of the (big) problem we want to solve 13:19:55 present+ Armin, Andreas, Ashok, Bill, Chris, Dimitar, Erich, Frans, Ian, Jeremy, Kerry, Linda, Payam 13:20:06 ... surfacing geospatial information on the _main_ web ... not niche [paraphrased] 13:20:09 present+ Jitao 13:20:19 Frans: is the charter not clear enough 13:20:26 eparsons: I think it is ... 13:20:48 Frans: so we need some finer details than are specified in the charter 13:21:04 eparsons: we can't re-write the charter - but we can add details 13:21:17 ... "why are we all here?" 13:21:26 ... is the key question 13:21:36 q? 13:21:42 ... we're aiming at broad market adoption - not a particular user community 13:21:48 ... this is a principle 13:21:49 ack next 13:21:59 Frans: but this could also be seen as a non-functional req 13:22:16 kerry: Frans' email phrased 3 questions: 13:22:22 ... i) vision 13:22:44 ... ii) & (iii) [missed] 13:23:13 kerry: the questions we need to ask are quite broad 13:23:34 eparsons: can you talk through the points you made in the email? 13:24:04 ... Frans: 13:24:17 joshlieberman has joined #sdw 13:24:23 Frans: distinction between functional and non-functional requirements 13:24:47 ... earlier I though we could leave the non-functional reqs for now ... but we keep coming back to htem 13:24:52 s/htem/them/ 13:25:08 Frans: examples - scalability, performance, mass market appeal 13:25:12 +1 to being explicit 13:25:22 ... could make sense to list these so that we can refer to them 13:25:43 -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Apr/0093.html Frans' e-mail 13:25:44 q+ 13:25:46 ... this explicit list could help communicate our thoughts with other WGs such as DWBP 13:25:52 eparsons: you're right ... 13:25:59 ack next 13:26:06 ... the principles give the context within which the BP doc exists 13:26:40 ChrisLittle: non-functional requirements [...] whether they get passed to the DWBP is a different issue 13:27:09 ... need the list of functional and non-functional reqs 13:27:18 ... any of these could be passed to DWBP 13:27:22 eparsons 13:27:25 +q 13:27:34 eparsons: what's your point about the broader principles? 13:27:41 ack next 13:27:42 ChrisLittle: we should capture these ... 13:28:00 kerry: comments on the three questions 13:28:18 ... in Frans email 13:28:23 kerry: 1. Are Principles the same as non-functional requirements? 13:28:42 kerry: 2. Should they only be applied to the Best Practices deliverable or to all deliverables? 13:28:55 q+ 13:28:57 kerry: 3. Does it make sense to describe them in the UCR document? 13:29:05 *me my microphone is disconnected, so echoes probably not my fault 13:29:36 kerry: for (1) ... principles are broader - but a subclass on non-functional reqs 13:30:11 ChrisLittle I will keep you muted - ping if you want to talk 13:30:22 kerry: for (2) principles should be applied to all deliverables; non-functional requirements _may_ be applied to all - but certainly to BP doc 13:30:29 kerry: for (3) YES 13:30:53 eparsons: any other views? 13:31:14 Frans: I wonder if we could have an example of a principle is not a non-functional requirement? 13:31:18 eparsons: good question 13:31:36 ... earlier I said that we were trying to make geospatial data more discoverable 13:31:47 ... this could be seen as a non-functional req 13:31:48 +1 is a priciple or a goal 13:31:56 That sounds like a goal. 13:32:13 ... but because it's so broad you can't really deliver against it [in a particular iteration] 13:32:28 eparsons: it's more like a vision or a goal 13:32:32 Is "non-functional requirement" really anything? It certainly sounds too close to "disfunctional" 13:33:02 Here is a definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-functional_requirement 13:33:08 webex is having trouble with bluetooth... 13:33:10 joshlieberman: [...] 13:33:13 +q 13:33:19 kerry: proposes 13:33:26 ack next 13:33:29 ... a non-functional requirement 13:33:45 ack next 13:34:02 kerry: a fresh non-functional req that is not a goal: 13:34:18 ... that the ontology work we do can be used comfortably with PROV 13:34:23 q+ 13:34:30 ... this is more technical than a vision thing 13:34:38 ack next 13:34:41 ... more of a behind the scenes things 13:34:51 ... a non-functional requirement that is not a goal 13:35:04 phila: if you wanted to generalise this to a goal then 13:35:17 ... the principle is "re-use existing vocabs" 13:35:33 kerry: happy with that - but I wanted to be specific about PROV 13:35:36 an ontology that works with PROV could be considered a functional requirement in the domain of ontology engineering... 13:35:59 kerry: need to show how SSN and PROV work together 13:36:10 eparsons: broad principle is "don't reinvent" ... 13:36:20 ... if there's something else out there - then re-use 13:36:30 q+ 13:36:32 +q 13:36:43 ... it's easy to get caught up in the semantics of [non-]functional requirments 13:36:49 ack next 13:36:54 +1 13:36:55 s/requirments/requirements/ 13:36:58 +1 13:37:04 +1 to broad community, though somehow have to define 'how broad' 13:37:20 Frans: semantics is always difficult 13:37:48 ... it would be good to have a _single_ list of requirements - each of which we can classify 13:37:59 ... let's avoid having two lists 13:38:17 ... for simplicity - can we agree a name [for the classifications] 13:38:24 +1 to one list, annotated 13:38:34 eparsons: am not sure I completely agree 13:38:51 ack next 13:38:52 ... principles sit at a level above the non-functional req 13:39:39 kerry: we can get through this by listing all the requirements now and classify _later_ 13:39:48 would it be more expressive to say "design requirement"? 13:39:52 +1 - first list, then group always a good idea 13:39:58 ... we don't need to decide if it's one list or two right now 13:40:07 eparsons: that's pragmatic 13:40:26 ... but I think it's important we all share the common vision 13:40:41 Frans: shall we set up a new wiki page for the principles? 13:40:47 eparsons: this would be good - 13:40:59 lets call it "goals, principles, vision and non-functional requirements" 13:41:05 q+ 13:41:08 ... it doesn't need to be a list - more a narrative description of the problem we're trying to solve 13:41:23 Frans: bullet list would be nice [this allows cross-ref] 13:41:36 ack next 13:41:37 ... to check against design principles 13:42:02 phila: I worry that this starts to get into duplicating the use case doc 13:42:13 ... or writing the intro to the BP doc 13:42:21 ... is this mission creep / duplication 13:42:46 ... a word of warning - my other group [DWBP] has spent a year trying to determine scope! 13:42:56 q+ 13:43:21 ... the principles would be useful - but [this feels more like the intro to the BP doc] 13:43:29 ... I want to avoid a "rat hole" 13:43:30 ack next 13:43:37 eparsons: [agrees] 13:43:59 kerry: [agrees] ... we can assemble things on the wiki then transfer to the introduction 13:44:08 The UCR document started on the wiki too 13:44:32 q+ 13:44:32 eparsons: I understand where Frans is coming from - but it's not necessary [or always possible] to break down these things into 13:44:37 ack next 13:44:39 ... discrete elements in a bullet list 13:45:51 billroberts: I was wondering if there is a way to work towards this [...] based on concrete examples rather than try to figure out a classification scheme up front 13:46:27 eparsons: [the introduction of the BP doc] is the place where we can get collective agreement on what's in / out of scope 13:46:30 bill - i agree, but that is exectly where we are now -- we are seeing what the UCRs demand and that is driving our assessment of "pupose"/principles. 13:46:46 s/pupose/purpose 13:46:50 I am all right with just starting and to see where we end up 13:47:13 jeremy says.... 13:47:23 jtandy: It's worth while doing a bottom up and top down approach simultaneously 13:47:31 jeremy: dont do top down and bottom up at the same time 13:47:46 jeremy: start doing stuff and then test against principles 13:48:09 jeremy: start now wit ha few principles and then use them. 13:48:13 +1 Jeremy 13:48:17 +1 to avoiding analysis paralysis 13:48:17 jeremy: lets just get started 13:48:20 +1 - agree with Jeremy 13:48:21 s/wit/with/ 13:48:28 +1 Jeremy 13:48:33 +1 to jeremy 13:48:35 s/wit/with 13:48:47 +1 to doing stuff 13:48:54 eparsons: I guess we create a new wiki page that will be a scratch pad for the princples 13:49:08 ... lets adopt both top-down and bottom-up 13:49:26 q+ 13:49:27 ... the goal here is nothing more than [framing what we want in the BP doc] 13:49:29 s/dont do/ do 13:49:30 ack next 13:49:56 Frans: so this means we will not have another chapter in the UC doc listing non-functional requirements? 13:50:13 eparsons: I don't think that is [necessarily] the case 13:50:25 ... the principles are at a higher level 13:50:30 q+ 13:50:39 ack next 13:50:40 Frans: I'm not looking for more work ... 13:50:42 q+ 13:50:43 chaals has joined #sdw 13:50:45 q+ jtandy 13:51:03 +1 13:51:10 Linda: wrt a chapter on non-functionals in the UC doc does this mean they don't get recorded? 13:51:17 eparsons: I think we do need to record them 13:51:39 present+ Josh 13:51:41 Frans: I don't understand the difference between the principles and non-functionals 13:51:49 ... I don't see the difference in levels 13:51:54 RRSAgent, draft minutes 13:51:54 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/29-sdw-minutes.html phila 13:52:00 q? 13:52:06 ack next 13:52:08 ... if we do see the difference then I can add the chapter in 13:52:20 Chair: Ed 13:52:37 jtandy: I see the narrative in the intro to the BP doc as setting out our overall goals 13:52:38 +1 jtandy 13:52:50 ... our non-functional reqs are ones that can be tested 13:53:10 +1 to jeremy 13:53:13 ... so a principle is non-testable, a non-functional req is testable 13:53:23 +1 testable requirements 13:53:26 Frans: this could be part of a definition 13:53:42 ... but are all non-functional reqs testable? 13:54:01 ... perhaps this is part of the definition 13:54:24 eparsons: perhaps this is another way to distinguish between the "what" and "how" 13:54:36 ... interoperability is not a goal in itseslf 13:54:42 q+ to talk about Erwin Folmer's use case 13:54:46 s/iteslf/itself/ 13:54:47 ack next 13:54:48 phila, you wanted to talk about Erwin Folmer's use case 13:55:18 eparsons: I will create the wiki page that is the "scratch pad" for the BP doc intro 13:55:33 ... let's try - doesn't need to be bullet points 13:55:47 action: ed to create wiki page that is the scratch pad for the BP doc intro 13:55:47 Created ACTION-23 - Create wiki page that is the scratch pad for the bp doc intro [on Ed Parsons - due 2015-05-06]. 13:56:09 this one https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Working_Use_Cases#INSPIRE_compliance_using_web_standards_.28Best_Practice.29 13:56:13 -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-comments/2015Mar/0000.html Erwin Folmer's use case 13:56:21 phila: Frans- did you notice Erwin Fulmer's use case? 13:56:30 Frans: yes 13:57:04 phila: does he know you've done it - have you let him know (e.g. explicitly responded to the email from the public list) 13:57:42 phila: the W3 process issue is "have you responded to the comment" - you need to tell him how you've acted on his request 13:57:54 Frans: should the reply be on the list? 13:58:09 phila: yes - keep all emails on the public list 13:58:11 q+ 13:58:16 ack next 13:58:49 jtandy: I reviewed the UCs that I put in. I've created a pull request on the repo that Francs and Alex can accept if they want to 13:59:05 ... I suggest we use that workflow. Editors remian in control of merging requests 13:59:44 +1 14:00:03 no! 14:00:10 We use the tracker for issues! 14:00:19 bye 14:00:22 eparsons: let's put git process on the agenda for next week ... 14:00:24 vyw 14:00:25 Thanks. Bye. 14:00:27 bye 14:00:29 bye 14:00:34 bye 14:00:35 bye 14:01:06 RRSAgent, generate minutes 14:01:06 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/29-sdw-minutes.html phila 14:01:30 ChrisLittle has left #sdw 14:01:39 ahaller2 has joined #sdw 14:01:52 joshlieberman has left #sdw 14:49:35 Payam has joined #sdw 16:08:19 Zakim has left #sdw 18:23:45 chaals has joined #sdw