Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

<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 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> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jun/0003.html

PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes, such as they are, see 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 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

-> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html Editor's draft

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> 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 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 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> 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 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> 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