IRC log of sdw on 2015-07-01

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:02:35 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #sdw

13:02:35 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-irc

13:02:35 [eparsons]

eparsons has joined #sdw

13:02:37 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs world

13:02:37 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #sdw

13:02:39 [trackbot]

Zakim, this will be SDW

13:02:39 [Zakim]

I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot

13:02:40 [trackbot]

Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

13:02:40 [trackbot]

Date: 01 July 2015

13:03:13 [phila]

regrets+ Frans, Rachel Heaven, Chris Little, Bart van Leeuwen, Andrea Perego, Clemens Portele

13:03:17 [eparsons]

present+ eparsons

13:03:17 [phila]

Chair: Ed

13:03:23 [kerry]

kerry has joined #sdw

13:03:29 [jtandy]

present+ jtandy

13:03:30 [phila]

present+ MattPerry, Alejandro_Llaves

13:03:37 [phila]

presnet+ phila

13:03:39 [joshlieberman]

preent+ joshlieberman

13:03:39 [ahaller2]

ahaller2 has joined #sdw

13:03:47 [phila]

present+ joshlieberman

13:03:47 [joshlieberman]

present+ joshlieberman

13:04:08 [ahaller2]

present+ ahaller2

13:04:11 [kerry]

present+ kerry

13:04:27 [kerry]

regrets+ payam

13:04:31 [SimonCox]

present+ SimonCox

13:04:49 [phila]

scribe: joshlieberman

13:05:03 [ThiagoAvila]

ThiagoAvila has joined #sdw

13:05:42 [eparsons]

Topic: Approve Minutes

13:05:48 [eparsons]

http://www.w3.org/2015/06/24-sdw-minutes.html

13:05:55 [eparsons]

PROPOSED: Accept last weeks minutes

13:06:05 [eparsons]

+1

13:06:12 [MattPerry]

+1

13:06:13 [Alejandro_Llaves]

+1

13:06:19 [LarsG]

LarsG has joined #sdw

13:06:26 [joshlieberman]

joshlieberman wasn't on the call

13:06:46 [kerry]

+1

13:06:49 [eparsons]

RESOLVED: Accept last week's minutes

13:06:50 [SimonCox]

SimonCox not present

13:06:56 [eparsons]

Topic: Patent Call

13:07:03 [eparsons]

https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

13:07:38 [eparsons]

Topic: Combined CRS Issues

13:07:47 [LarsG]

present+ LarsG

13:08:31 [eparsons]

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 [jtandy]

q+

13:09:57 [eparsons]

ack next

13:10:14 [SimonCox]

Do we need the word 'recommended'?

13:10:34 [joshlieberman]

jtandy: good to avoid parse-able URI

13:10:36 [phila]

phila: Notes that Frans' proposal was made at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jun/0228.html

13:10:46 [cory]

cory has joined #sdw

13:11:01 [SimonCox]

+1

13:11:04 [SimonCox]

+1

13:11:06 [joshlieberman]

SimonCox: we don't need the "recommended" part

13:11:07 [MattPerry]

q+

13:11:14 [eparsons]

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 [jtandy]

+!

13:11:19 [eparsons]

ack next

13:11:21 [jtandy]

+1

13:11:33 [joshlieberman]

+q

13:11:37 [jtandy]

q+

13:11:47 [eparsons]

ack next

13:12:31 [SimonCox]

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 [ThiagoAvila]

Hi for all.

13:12:44 [eparsons]

ack next

13:12:49 [phila]

q+ to show his ignorance

13:12:50 [joshlieberman]

MattPerry: there should be "one" way

13:13:31 [MattPerry]

I can live with removal of "recommended"

13:13:48 [Alejandro_Llaves]

Me too

13:14:14 [eparsons]

ack next

13:14:16 [Zakim]

phila, you wanted to show his ignorance

13:14:33 [SimonCox]

OGC does, but so do others

13:14:40 [Alejandro_Llaves]

+q

13:14:40 [joshlieberman]

jtandy: phila: doesn't OGC provide CRS URL's

13:15:38 [eparsons]

ack next

13:15:55 [Rachel]

Rachel has joined #sdw

13:16:08 [joshlieberman]

phila: should requirement also include what the URI references?

13:16:13 [Rachel]

present+ Rachel

13:16:17 [IanHolt]

IanHolt has joined #sdw

13:16:26 [phila]

s/the URI references/the URI returns

13:16:38 [phila]

regrets- Rachel

13:16:43 [Rachel]

[made it after all, sorry a bit late!]

13:16:51 [eparsons]

Hi Rachel :-)

13:17:00 [joshlieberman]

Alejandro: OGC provides URI's but requirement can cover problems "already solved"

13:17:18 [eparsons]

ack next

13:17:28 [IanHolt]

present+ IanHolt

13:17:37 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes.html phila

13:17:51 [eparsons]

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 [cory]

present+ cory

13:18:31 [MattPerry]

q+

13:18:35 [SimonCox]

http://epsg.io http://spatialreference.org http://www.opengis.net/def/crs/EPSG/0/ all good

13:18:42 [eparsons]

ack next

13:19:20 [joshlieberman]

MattPerry: GeoSPARQL sets a default of WGS84 as represented in OGC CRS84

13:19:45 [joshlieberman]

q+

13:19:49 [jtandy]

q+

13:19:52 [eparsons]

ack next

13:20:08 [Alejandro_Llaves]

The req. under discussion is described here http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#DefaultCRS

13:20:21 [jtandy]

joshlieberman: we need to decide what that default would be

13:20:37 [eparsons]

ack next

13:20:40 [kerry]

we do hav e issue-28 on this topic

13:20:40 [jtandy]

... looking at usage, wgs84 is by far most common

13:20:59 [LarsG]

q+

13:21:06 [joshlieberman]

joshlieberman: the prevalence of CRS84 recommends the practicality of a default

13:21:21 [phila]

present+ Cory, SimonCox, ThiagoAvila

13:21:22 [eparsons]

ack next

13:21:44 [kerry]

+q

13:22:27 [eparsons]

ack next

13:23:25 [kerry]

yes

13:23:28 [joshlieberman]

kerry: WGS84 is most common, but not applicable to some use cases.

13:24:15 [joshlieberman]

kerry: prefer a simple reference over a default

13:24:34 [jtandy]

+1

13:24:50 [Rachel]

+1 to Kerry

13:25:30 [SimonCox]

'no default' would immediately invalidate all GeoJSON (which _does_ have a default in fact)

13:25:32 [joshlieberman]

eparsons: many user communities do not include a reference and a clear default might have helped with clarity

13:25:46 [eparsons]

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 [SimonCox]

q+

13:26:18 [joshlieberman]

q+

13:26:21 [eparsons]

ack next

13:27:46 [joshlieberman]

SimonCox: no clear practice. GeoSPARQL inherits WKT and GML. GeoJSON doesn't support geometry CRS's

13:28:36 [eparsons]

ack next

13:28:36 [jtandy]

q+

13:29:53 [eparsons]

ack next

13:30:11 [joshlieberman]

joshlieberman: geometry-level CRS anticipates multiple possible geometries per spatial entity

13:30:12 [jtandy]

"all geometries shall be associated with a CRS"

13:30:18 [Alejandro_Llaves]

+1

13:30:23 [eparsons]

+1

13:30:41 [MattPerry]

+1

13:31:16 [SimonCox]

+1

13:31:26 [joshlieberman]

+1

13:31:40 [kerry]

+1

13:32:08 [IanHolt]

+1

13:32:19 [SimonCox]

(what I meant was we need to say something about the predicate, as well as the CRS resource ...)

13:32:36 [eparsons]

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 [kerry]

itis documented in the tracker

13:32:41 [phila]

RESOLVED: That at the highest level, the BP doc will say that "all geometries shall be associated with a CRS"

13:33:22 [joshlieberman]

q+

13:33:25 [kerry]

+

13:33:27 [eparsons]

ack next

13:33:36 [phila]

q+ kerry

13:36:00 [eparsons]

ack next

13:36:27 [joshlieberman]

joshlieberman: BP should strive to recommend "specification" that at some times will be accepted standards

13:36:57 [Alejandro_Llaves]

+q

13:37:03 [eparsons]

ack next

13:37:06 [joshlieberman]

kerry: prefer "advice"

13:37:41 [kerry]

q+

13:37:55 [joshlieberman]

Alejandro: do the terms need to be in the requirements?

13:39:08 [eparsons]

ack next

13:39:59 [kerry]

+1

13:40:03 [joshlieberman]

kerry: term "advice" works for requirements. BP can then use other terms for its "advice"

13:40:09 [jtandy]

+1

13:40:13 [MattPerry]

+1

13:40:14 [SimonCox]

Did we finish the 'default CRS' question?

13:41:17 [Alejandro_Llaves]

I can do that

13:41:19 [joshlieberman]

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 [eparsons]

Topic : Best Practices Skeleton

13:42:04 [eparsons]

https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Notes_for_Context#Suggested_Skeleton

13:42:27 [joshlieberman]

phila, not remembering how to create an action. Please demonstrate...

13:42:37 [phila]

action: Llaves to highlight that the default CRS issue is unresolved, when next editing the UCR doc

13:42:38 [trackbot]

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 [Alejandro_Llaves]

thanks!

13:44:02 [phila]

regrets+ Bill

13:44:14 [joshlieberman]

jtandy: not sure that UCR content has sufficiently been analyzed to create an appropriate skeleton / outline.

13:45:21 [joshlieberman]

joshlieberman: how do you characterize the "things" to form the outline?

13:45:38 [phila]

q+

13:46:16 [joshlieberman]

jtandy: that should fall out of the analysis.

13:46:42 [joshlieberman]

joshlieberman: should we say "common practices" to cover?

13:47:08 [eparsons]

ack next

13:48:03 [joshlieberman]

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]

joshlieberman: some examples of "dangling requirements" would help.

13:50:09 [Alejandro_Llaves]

Well, there are some reqs. waiting to be discussed and raised as issues.

13:50:29 [eparsons]

Topic: ANOB

13:50:31 [joshlieberman]

joshlieberman: is it initially a process of scrubbing the requirements?

13:50:36 [Alejandro_Llaves]

That I assume will be discussed in forthcoming calls.

13:50:51 [phila]

q+ To talk about TPAC

13:50:56 [eparsons]

ack next

13:50:57 [Zakim]

phila, you wanted to talk about TPAC

13:50:57 [joshlieberman]

jtandy: process for providing UCR draft feedback?

13:52:15 [joshlieberman]

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]

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 [joshlieberman]

phila: working document only lists the W3C list (needs to be corrected).

13:57:04 [phila]

action: phila to update UCR snapshot with public-comments list ASAP

13:57:05 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-56 - to update ucr snapshot with public-comments list asap [on Phil Archer - due 2015-07-08].

13:58:29 [joshlieberman]

action: ed to monitor OGC channels for feedback on the UCR draft once released as an OGC document

13:58:30 [trackbot]

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 [LarsG]

bye, thanks

13:58:50 [Alejandro_Llaves]

thanks, bye!

13:58:57 [phila]

RRSAgent, draft minutes

13:58:57 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes.html phila

13:58:58 [Rachel]

bye

13:58:59 [eparsons]

bye !

13:59:00 [joshlieberman]

bye, thanks

13:59:03 [joshlieberman]

joshlieberman has left #sdw

13:59:06 [IanHolt]

bye

13:59:15 [SimonCox]

Regrets for next week

13:59:20 [SimonCox]

school holidays

13:59:24 [phila]

RRSAgent, draft minutes

13:59:24 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes.html phila

14:13:47 [eparsons]

eparsons has joined #sdw

16:00:57 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #sdw

17:03:03 [phila]

RRSAgent, bye

17:03:03 [RRSAgent]

I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-actions.rdf :

17:03:03 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Llaves to highlight that the default CRS issue is unresolved, when next editing the UCR doc [1]

17:03:03 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-irc#T13-42-37

17:03:03 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: phila to update UCR snapshot with public-comments list ASAP [2]

17:03:03 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-irc#T13-57-04

17:03:03 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: ed to monitor OGC channels for feedback on the UCR draft once released as an OGC document [3]

17:03:03 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-irc#T13-58-29