IRC log of sdw on 2015-10-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

12:56:32 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #sdw

12:56:32 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/10/14-sdw-irc

12:56:34 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs world

12:56:34 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #sdw

12:56:36 [trackbot]

Zakim, this will be SDW

12:56:36 [Zakim]

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

12:56:37 [trackbot]

Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

12:56:38 [trackbot]

Date: 14 October 2015

12:57:14 [eparsons]

RRSAgent, make logs public

12:57:24 [eparsons]

present+ eparsons

12:57:44 [eparsons]

chair : eparsons

12:57:53 [eparsons]

Meeting: SDW WG Weekly

12:58:36 [kerry]

present+ kerry

12:59:57 [eparsons]

Hey where is everyone ?

13:00:38 [Payam]

Payam has joined #sdw

13:01:13 [Alejandro_Llaves]

Alejandro_Llaves has joined #sdw

13:01:29 [Alejandro_Llaves]

present+ Alejandro_Llaves

13:02:13 [Payam]

present +Payam

13:02:25 [billroberts]

billroberts has joined #sdw

13:03:51 [joshlieberman]

joshlieberman has joined #sdw

13:04:04 [Linda]

Linda has joined #sdw

13:04:11 [billroberts]

mornign all, just trying to get my webex going

13:04:14 [joshlieberman]

present+ joshlieberman

13:04:16 [eparsons]

OK Bill

13:04:43 [kerry]

mornig? oy yes. it *isI morning, by 5 minutes

13:04:45 [billroberts]

(morning/afternoon/evening as appropriate)

13:05:16 [frans]

frans has joined #sdw

13:05:33 [frans]

present+ frans

13:05:43 [kerry]

scribe: josh

13:05:45 [Linda]

present+ Linda

13:05:52 [kerry]

scribenick: josh

13:06:00 [jtandy]

jtandy has joined #sdw

13:06:13 [kerry]

scribenick: joshlieberman

13:06:15 [jtandy]

present+ jtandy

13:06:24 [LarsG]

LarsG has joined #sdw

13:06:33 [billrobe_]

billrobe_ has joined #sdw

13:06:51 [LarsG]

present+ LarsG

13:07:21 [eparsons]

Topic: Approve Minutes

13:07:28 [eparsons]

http://www.w3.org/2015/10/07-sdw-minutes.html

13:07:35 [eparsons]

PROPOSED: Accept last meeting minutes

13:07:38 [jtandy]

+0 (apologies - wasn't there)

13:07:38 [eparsons]

+1

13:07:41 [kerry]

+1

13:07:42 [LarsG]

+1

13:07:45 [frans]

+1

13:07:47 [Alejandro_Llaves]

+0, not there

13:07:51 [Linda]

+1

13:07:52 [eparsons]

RESOLVED: Accept last meeting minutes

13:07:56 [billrobe_]

present+ billroberts

13:07:59 [Payam]

+1

13:08:01 [eparsons]

Topic: Patent Call - https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

13:08:12 [kerry]

rrsagent, make logs public

13:08:47 [eparsons]

Topic: Resolving remaining UCR issues

13:09:03 [kerry]

regrets+ Bart van Leeuwen

13:09:15 [kerry]

regrets+ Rachel Heaven

13:09:23 [frans]

http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/products/1

13:09:30 [kerry]

regrets+ Jon Blower

13:09:39 [joshlieberman]

frans: remaining unresolved issues

13:09:41 [kerry]

regrets+ Simon Cox

13:09:54 [kerry]

regrets+ Stefan Lemme

13:10:36 [eparsons]

q?

13:11:38 [kerry]

+q

13:11:52 [eparsons]

ack next

13:12:24 [joshlieberman]

frans: Issue 16 valid time requirement out of scope? Issue 15 represent past, present, future not clear?

13:12:31 [ChrisLittle]

ChrisLittle has joined #sdw

13:12:51 [billrobe_]

q+

13:12:56 [ChrisLittle]

present+ ChrisLittle

13:13:03 [joshlieberman]

kerry: what is the Valid time disagreement?

13:13:05 [eparsons]

ack next

13:13:21 [Payam]

Payam has joined #sdw

13:13:43 [joshlieberman]

frans: one view is that OWL-Time expresses time, not its relevance to spatial data.

13:13:58 [joshlieberman]

q+

13:14:38 [ChrisLittle]

q+

13:14:58 [joshlieberman]

kerry: agreed, but should we cover those relationships additionally?

13:15:05 [jtandy]

q+ to ask about scoping

13:15:10 [eparsons]

ack next

13:15:31 [joshlieberman]

frans: well, not technically in scope, since the scope covers OWL-TIme alone and that doesn't include validity predicates.

13:16:02 [joshlieberman]

billrobert: isn't this a generic data issues?

13:16:22 [kerry]

+1

13:16:50 [frans]

http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-valid

13:17:35 [eparsons]

ack next

13:19:50 [eparsons]

ack next

13:19:51 [Zakim]

jtandy, you wanted to ask about scoping

13:20:27 [joshlieberman]

josh: spatial data needs particular expressions of validity / relevance to the real world. That has to include time.

13:21:05 [joshlieberman]

chris: in general, the representation of time on the Web needs work as well, and this group or someone else needs to take this on.

13:22:45 [kerry]

q+

13:22:50 [joshlieberman]

jeremy: validTime is conceived as just a property with range OWL-Time. Should create / adopt bits of vocabulary as needed such as this.

13:23:27 [joshlieberman]

eparsons: probably need to decide this sort of scope question sooner rather than later.

13:23:29 [jtandy]

(the SDW charter allows us to formalise practice as necessary - we could produce additonal Notes)

13:23:41 [billrobe_]

Ed: kerry is on the speaker queue

13:23:56 [eparsons]

ack next

13:24:00 [Alejandro_Llaves]

+q

13:24:33 [jtandy]

"spatial data needs temporal context" ... good point kerry

13:24:48 [eparsons]

ack next

13:24:55 [joshlieberman]

kerry: agree with josh, chris, jeremy that spatial data needs temporal context. Shouldn't feel constrained by narrow interpretation of scope.

13:25:11 [billrobe_]

q+

13:25:33 [eparsons]

ack next

13:25:43 [Alejandro_Llaves]

I can write, then...

13:26:11 [joshlieberman]

billrobe_: clear this is important, not clear that anyone has done this for us, so reassured on scope.

13:27:11 [joshlieberman]

frans: Issue 15: trend towards not having this as a requirement

13:27:50 [jtandy]

past, present and future are valid statements only at a particular point in time ... we need relative statements; e.g. "before {now}" = past

13:28:03 [frans]

http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#TemporalReferenceSystem

13:28:08 [joshlieberman]

frans: Issue 25: temporal reference "description should be referenceable online

13:28:13 [jtandy]

(previous comment relating to Issue 15)

13:28:31 [joshlieberman]

could we change "description" to "definition"?

13:28:33 [jtandy]

s/(previous/(my previous/

13:28:50 [joshlieberman]

q+

13:28:51 [Alejandro_Llaves]

IMO, with many of this issues related to UCR document we are trying to provide solutions. And this is not the point of the UCR document, nor the proper time to provide solutions to them, according to the group charter schedule. Best practice document and the corresponding Time deliverables, etc. would be the proper tool to discuss and propose solutions to the issues. I understood the UCR document as an exercise to extract requirements from UCs.

13:29:28 [Alejandro_Llaves]

We could discuss if reqs are well phrased, if they need more examples, etc. But it seems we are trying to solve them now.

13:29:30 [eparsons]

PROPOSED: Accept "Temporal reference system requirement: phrasing" for Issue 25

13:29:55 [frans]

proposal: If a temporal reference is used, the definition of the temporal reference system (e.g. Unix date, Gregorian Calendar, Japanese Imperial Calendar, Carbon Date, Geological Date) should be referenceable online.

13:29:57 [Linda]

+1

13:29:59 [joshlieberman]

+1

13:30:04 [jtandy]

+1

13:30:04 [eparsons]

+1

13:30:05 [billrobe_]

+1

13:30:06 [frans]

+1

13:30:10 [Alejandro_Llaves]

+1

13:30:14 [LarsG]

+1

13:30:21 [kerry]

+1

13:30:29 [eparsons]

RESOLVED: Accept "Temporal reference system requirement: phrasing" for Issue 25

13:30:54 [chaals]

chaals has joined #sdw

13:31:31 [joshlieberman]

frans: Issue 28 - require default CRS, Issue 29 - require linking geometry to CRS

13:32:22 [jtandy]

q+

13:32:31 [joshlieberman]

q-

13:32:32 [eparsons]

ack next

13:32:39 [ChrisLittle]

q+

13:33:05 [joshlieberman]

kerry: maybe it will go away on its own?

13:33:12 [joshlieberman]

eparsons: never!

13:33:21 [eparsons]

ack next

13:33:53 [joshlieberman]

jeremy: point to real practices and decide what to adopt, rather than making a hard requirement.

13:33:54 [kerry]

+q

13:34:06 [joshlieberman]

q+

13:34:10 [eparsons]

ack next

13:34:52 [eparsons]

ack next

13:34:59 [frans]

q+

13:35:39 [jtandy]

joshlieberman: there is widespread practice to assume WGS84

13:35:45 [jtandy]

... mostly this works

13:35:48 [ChrisLittle]

q+

13:36:19 [jtandy]

joshlieberman: if we accumulate enough evidence of the assumption about WGS84 being broken, then we can make a statement

13:36:22 [eparsons]

ack next

13:36:27 [jtandy]

... about people changing their practice

13:36:36 [joshlieberman]

josh: good approach to examine practice. Maybe we will develop a requirement if practice turns out to be broken.

13:37:31 [joshlieberman]

frans: people may be waiting for better "best practices". Continental drift may be catching up with us anyway.

13:37:38 [eparsons]

ack next

13:39:47 [frans]

q+

13:39:53 [Linda]

+1

13:39:53 [eparsons]

ack next

13:39:57 [jtandy]

q+ to ask about namespacing?

13:40:03 [eparsons]

+1 to chris

13:40:08 [joshlieberman]

chris: agree that evidence is needed. At some point, though, a CRS does need to be understood, whether its a defined default or not.

13:40:25 [eparsons]

ack next

13:40:27 [Zakim]

jtandy, you wanted to ask about namespacing?

13:40:28 [ChrisLittle]

+1

13:40:47 [joshlieberman]

frans: remember that these are requirements, not yet solutions

13:41:15 [kerry]

+1 to jeremy

13:41:58 [joshlieberman]

jeremy: the base requirement is "where are things on the planet (or elsewhere)" Only 1% need to make CRS explicit, but what do we need to do for the 99%

13:42:11 [Alejandro_Llaves]

yay!

13:42:13 [kerry]

t+1 -- this is a solution but is so easy that it should not be too hard for anyone -- it is effectively a default while being explicit

13:43:03 [Alejandro_Llaves]

+1 to Ed

13:44:04 [kerry]

+1 to frans solution

13:44:04 [joshlieberman]

frans: still good idea to have a wiki page for evidence and ideas.

13:44:49 [joshlieberman]

+1 to wiki page

13:45:06 [eparsons]

Topic: Best Practice update

13:45:16 [kerry]

action: Frans to start a wiki page on evidence for CRS being needed or not

13:45:16 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-82 - Start a wiki page on evidence for crs being needed or not [on Frans Knibbe - due 2015-10-21].

13:45:18 [eparsons]

yay Linda !!!

13:45:23 [Linda]

thanks Jeremy

13:45:27 [joshlieberman]

jeremy: welcome on the editorial board to Linda

13:45:53 [jtandy]

https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Linked-data

13:46:13 [kerry]

q+ to mention mapping use cases to themes

13:46:18 [Payam]

yes, we had a quick discussion on it

13:46:33 [joshlieberman]

Do you not have audio?

13:46:55 [eparsons]

ack next

13:46:56 [Zakim]

kerry, you wanted to mention mapping use cases to themes

13:47:35 [Payam]

since the last meeting, there have been some new emails in the discussion thread and I will update the wiki

13:47:57 [joshlieberman]

kerry: Linda has done some of the mapping of issues to requirements. I did some for the sensors thread.

13:48:42 [Linda]

This is the link https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidated_Narratives

13:49:23 [kerry]

https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidated_Narratives#Mapping_Requirements_to_this_theme_.28Kerry.29

13:50:01 [Linda]

yes both

13:50:03 [kerry]

+1

13:50:12 [LarsG]

+1

13:50:12 [jtandy]

+1

13:50:18 [joshlieberman]

jeremy: clear that different levels of abstraction are involved. Are we interested in both evident levels?

13:50:19 [eparsons]

+1 the thing and its representation

13:50:20 [ChrisLittle]

+1

13:50:25 [joshlieberman]

+1

13:50:51 [eparsons]

q+

13:50:56 [ChrisLittle]

complex geometry

13:51:02 [joshlieberman]

jeremy: anything special about spatial data sets?

13:51:34 [frans]

q+

13:51:45 [joshlieberman]

q+

13:51:54 [eparsons]

ack next

13:51:57 [eparsons]

ack next

13:52:36 [joshlieberman]

frans: high chance that spatial data is "professional" with curators / maintainers, etc.

13:53:22 [eparsons]

ack next

13:54:24 [eparsons]

rrsagent, draft minutes

13:54:24 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/10/14-sdw-minutes.html eparsons

13:54:54 [eparsons]

q?

13:55:06 [joshlieberman]

joshlieberman: spatial data actually has different structure and granularity because it represents real world entities.

13:55:15 [frans]

q+

13:55:23 [eparsons]

ack next

13:55:59 [joshlieberman]

frans: another specialty: special links between data entities.

13:56:24 [eparsons]

+1 for links

13:56:50 [joshlieberman]

jeremy: "links are 1st class citizens" - consensus here. But what does that mean for link-poor formats?

13:56:56 [frans]

I am afraid I did not understand the 3...2...1 question

13:57:03 [joshlieberman]

q+

13:57:09 [eparsons]

ack next

13:57:32 [ChrisLittle]

q+

13:57:44 [eparsons]

ack next

13:58:15 [kerry]

+q but json-ld does do links, doesn't it?

13:58:30 [eparsons]

Josh : no best Practice yet..

13:58:35 [joshlieberman]

josh: a consistent practice was identified in TB-11 as a need, but would have to be synthesized from disparate practice.

13:58:43 [joshlieberman]

--for JSON

13:58:46 [eparsons]

ack next

13:59:17 [joshlieberman]

chris: tools are part of the need for those link-poor formats.

14:00:20 [joshlieberman]

eparsons: out of time -- look forward to the 8 other issues next time.

14:00:21 [frans]

What a great cliffhanger. I can wait for the next edition of the meeting.

14:00:39 [billrobe_]

:-) thanks everyone

14:00:51 [LarsG]

Thanks, bye

14:00:53 [frans]

s/can wait/can not wait/

14:01:06 [Alejandro_Llaves]

thanks, bye!

14:01:07 [Linda]

bye!

14:01:08 [Payam]

thanks, bye

14:01:09 [kerry]

bye!

14:01:09 [joshlieberman]

bye thanks

14:01:10 [eparsons]

bye all _ thanks

14:01:13 [ChrisLittle]

bye

14:01:16 [frans]

bye!

14:01:21 [ChrisLittle]

ChrisLittle has left #sdw

14:01:25 [eparsons]

rrsagent, draft minutes

14:01:25 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/10/14-sdw-minutes.html eparsons

14:01:42 [joshlieberman]

joshlieberman has left #sdw

15:04:47 [jtandy]

jtandy has joined #sdw

16:20:21 [chaals]

chaals has joined #sdw

16:27:50 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #sdw