13:02:35 RRSAgent has joined #sdw 13:02:35 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-irc 13:02:35 eparsons has joined #sdw 13:02:37 RRSAgent, make logs world 13:02:37 Zakim has joined #sdw 13:02:39 Zakim, this will be SDW 13:02:39 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 13:02:40 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference 13:02:40 Date: 01 July 2015 13:03:13 regrets+ Frans, Rachel Heaven, Chris Little, Bart van Leeuwen, Andrea Perego, Clemens Portele 13:03:17 present+ eparsons 13:03:17 Chair: Ed 13:03:23 kerry has joined #sdw 13:03:29 present+ jtandy 13:03:30 present+ MattPerry, Alejandro_Llaves 13:03:37 presnet+ phila 13:03:39 preent+ joshlieberman 13:03:39 ahaller2 has joined #sdw 13:03:47 present+ joshlieberman 13:03:47 present+ joshlieberman 13:04:08 present+ ahaller2 13:04:11 present+ kerry 13:04:27 regrets+ payam 13:04:31 present+ SimonCox 13:04:49 scribe: joshlieberman 13:05:03 ThiagoAvila has joined #sdw 13:05:42 Topic: Approve Minutes 13:05:48 http://www.w3.org/2015/06/24-sdw-minutes.html 13:05:55 PROPOSED: Accept last weeks minutes 13:06:05 +1 13:06:12 +1 13:06:13 +1 13:06:19 LarsG has joined #sdw 13:06:26 joshlieberman wasn't on the call 13:06:46 +1 13:06:49 RESOLVED: Accept last week's minutes 13:06:50 SimonCox not present 13:06:56 Topic: Patent Call 13:07:03 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call 13:07:38 Topic: Combined CRS Issues 13:07:47 present+ LarsG 13:08:31 1)The CRS Definition requirement currently in the UCR document should be rephrased. This is what ISSUE-10 is about. The proposal for new wording is "There should be a recommended way of referencing a CRS with a HTTP URI, and to get useful information about the CRS when that URI is dereferenced." 13:09:48 q+ 13:09:57 ack next 13:10:14 Do we need the word 'recommended'? 13:10:34 jtandy: good to avoid parse-able URI 13:10:36 phila: Notes that Frans' proposal was made at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jun/0228.html 13:10:46 cory has joined #sdw 13:11:01 +1 13:11:04 +1 13:11:06 SimonCox: we don't need the "recommended" part 13:11:07 q+ 13:11:14 There should be a way of referencing a CRS with a HTTP URI, and to get useful information about the CRS when that URI is dereferenced." 13:11:17 +! 13:11:19 ack next 13:11:21 +1 13:11:33 +q 13:11:37 q+ 13:11:47 ack next 13:12:31 There are multiple existing sources of CRS definitions. Most of them are good. Do we intend to single out one of them as 'recommended'? 13:12:38 Hi for all. 13:12:44 ack next 13:12:49 q+ to show his ignorance 13:12:50 MattPerry: there should be "one" way 13:13:31 I can live with removal of "recommended" 13:13:48 Me too 13:14:14 ack next 13:14:16 phila, you wanted to show his ignorance 13:14:33 OGC does, but so do others 13:14:40 +q 13:14:40 jtandy: phila: doesn't OGC provide CRS URL's 13:15:38 ack next 13:15:55 Rachel has joined #sdw 13:16:08 phila: should requirement also include what the URI references? 13:16:13 present+ Rachel 13:16:17 IanHolt has joined #sdw 13:16:26 s/the URI references/the URI returns 13:16:38 regrets- Rachel 13:16:43 [made it after all, sorry a bit late!] 13:16:51 Hi Rachel :-) 13:17:00 Alejandro: OGC provides URI's but requirement can cover problems "already solved" 13:17:18 ack next 13:17:28 present+ IanHolt 13:17:37 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes.html phila 13:17:51 2)In the course of discussing CRS requirements a new BP requirement was introduced: Default CRS. No issues have been raised with regard to this requirement yet. 13:18:31 present+ cory 13:18:31 q+ 13:18:35 http://epsg.io http://spatialreference.org http://www.opengis.net/def/crs/EPSG/0/ all good 13:18:42 ack next 13:19:20 MattPerry: GeoSPARQL sets a default of WGS84 as represented in OGC CRS84 13:19:45 q+ 13:19:49 q+ 13:19:52 ack next 13:20:08 The req. under discussion is described here http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#DefaultCRS 13:20:21 joshlieberman: we need to decide what that default would be 13:20:37 ack next 13:20:40 we do hav e issue-28 on this topic 13:20:40 ... looking at usage, wgs84 is by far most common 13:20:59 q+ 13:21:06 joshlieberman: the prevalence of CRS84 recommends the practicality of a default 13:21:21 present+ Cory, SimonCox, ThiagoAvila 13:21:22 ack next 13:21:44 +q 13:22:27 ack next 13:23:25 yes 13:23:28 kerry: WGS84 is most common, but not applicable to some use cases. 13:24:15 kerry: prefer a simple reference over a default 13:24:34 +1 13:24:50 +1 to Kerry 13:25:30 'no default' would immediately invalidate all GeoJSON (which _does_ have a default in fact) 13:25:32 eparsons: many user communities do not include a reference and a clear default might have helped with clarity 13:25:46 3)In the course of discussing CRS requirements a possible new BP requirement has come up. ISSUE-29 (Add a requirement for linking geometry to CRS) was raised to enable further discussion and/or decision-making. 13:26:17 q+ 13:26:18 q+ 13:26:21 ack next 13:27:46 SimonCox: no clear practice. GeoSPARQL inherits WKT and GML. GeoJSON doesn't support geometry CRS's 13:28:36 ack next 13:28:36 q+ 13:29:53 ack next 13:30:11 joshlieberman: geometry-level CRS anticipates multiple possible geometries per spatial entity 13:30:12 "all geometries shall be associated with a CRS" 13:30:18 +1 13:30:23 +1 13:30:41 +1 13:31:16 +1 13:31:26 +1 13:31:40 +1 13:32:08 +1 13:32:19 (what I meant was we need to say something about the predicate, as well as the CRS resource ...) 13:32:36 4)Whether 'a recommend way' is the best expression to be used in requirements is something that is discussed in the thread Use of the word 'standard' in the UCR document. 13:32:39 itis documented in the tracker 13:32:41 RESOLVED: That at the highest level, the BP doc will say that "all geometries shall be associated with a CRS" 13:33:22 q+ 13:33:25 + 13:33:27 ack next 13:33:36 q+ kerry 13:36:00 ack next 13:36:27 joshlieberman: BP should strive to recommend "specification" that at some times will be accepted standards 13:36:57 +q 13:37:03 ack next 13:37:06 kerry: prefer "advice" 13:37:41 q+ 13:37:55 Alejandro: do the terms need to be in the requirements? 13:39:08 ack next 13:39:59 +1 13:40:03 kerry: term "advice" works for requirements. BP can then use other terms for its "advice" 13:40:09 +1 13:40:13 +1 13:40:14 Did we finish the 'default CRS' question? 13:41:17 I can do that 13:41:19 jtandy: we seem to have ducked the default CRS question and not yet agreed whether to make it a requirement or not. 13:41:53 Topic : Best Practices Skeleton 13:42:04 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Notes_for_Context#Suggested_Skeleton 13:42:27 phila, not remembering how to create an action. Please demonstrate... 13:42:37 action: Llaves to highlight that the default CRS issue is unresolved, when next editing the UCR doc 13:42:38 Created ACTION-55 - Highlight that the default crs issue is unresolved, when next editing the ucr doc [on Alejandro Llaves - due 2015-07-08]. 13:42:54 thanks! 13:44:02 regrets+ Bill 13:44:14 jtandy: not sure that UCR content has sufficiently been analyzed to create an appropriate skeleton / outline. 13:45:21 joshlieberman: how do you characterize the "things" to form the outline? 13:45:38 q+ 13:46:16 jtandy: that should fall out of the analysis. 13:46:42 joshlieberman: should we say "common practices" to cover? 13:47:08 ack next 13:48:03 phila: there was analysis in Barcelona as far as the requirements extraction. Question may be "is the list of requirements complete?" 13:48:44 joshlieberman: some examples of "dangling requirements" would help. 13:50:09 Well, there are some reqs. waiting to be discussed and raised as issues. 13:50:29 Topic: ANOB 13:50:31 joshlieberman: is it initially a process of scrubbing the requirements? 13:50:36 That I assume will be discussed in forthcoming calls. 13:50:51 q+ To talk about TPAC 13:50:56 ack next 13:50:57 phila, you wanted to talk about TPAC 13:50:57 jtandy: process for providing UCR draft feedback? 13:52:15 phila: there is a comments tracker tool that can be used to extract from email feedback (as part of WG review) 13:54:48 joshlieberman: for OGC public documents (standards or other) the public can provide feedback either on a mailing list or through the Change Request mechanism. Members of the WG will then need to review and transfer to W3C list / tool 13:56:39 phila: working document only lists the W3C list (needs to be corrected). 13:57:04 action: phila to update UCR snapshot with public-comments list ASAP 13:57:05 Created ACTION-56 - to update ucr snapshot with public-comments list asap [on Phil Archer - due 2015-07-08]. 13:58:29 action: ed to monitor OGC channels for feedback on the UCR draft once released as an OGC document 13:58:30 Created ACTION-57 - Monitor ogc channels for feedback on the ucr draft once released as an ogc document [on Ed Parsons - due 2015-07-08]. 13:58:50 bye, thanks 13:58:50 thanks, bye! 13:58:57 RRSAgent, draft minutes 13:58:57 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes.html phila 13:58:58 bye 13:58:59 bye ! 13:59:00 bye, thanks 13:59:03 joshlieberman has left #sdw 13:59:06 bye 13:59:15 Regrets for next week 13:59:20 school holidays 13:59:24 RRSAgent, draft minutes 13:59:24 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes.html phila 14:13:47 eparsons has joined #sdw 16:00:57 Zakim has left #sdw 17:03:03 RRSAgent, bye 17:03:03 I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-actions.rdf : 17:03:03 ACTION: Llaves to highlight that the default CRS issue is unresolved, when next editing the UCR doc [1] 17:03:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-irc#T13-42-37 17:03:03 ACTION: phila to update UCR snapshot with public-comments list ASAP [2] 17:03:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-irc#T13-57-04 17:03:03 ACTION: ed to monitor OGC channels for feedback on the UCR draft once released as an OGC document [3] 17:03:03 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-irc#T13-58-29