See also: IRC log
<ChrisLittle> * great that JT is target driven!
<kerry> regrets billroberts, jonblower, clemensportele, lindavandenbrink, frans
<ChrisLittle> * I see 8 on IRC
<joshlieberman> The OGC abstract specs are here: http://www.opengeospatial.org/docs/as
<scribe> scribe: phila
<kerry> scribe: phila
<scribe> scribeNick: phila
<jtandy> that's TPAC right?
<jtandy> yes
<ByronCinNZ> +1
<jtandy> yes the meeting was short - I remember Linda saying so
RESOLUTION: approve minutes
<ChrisLittle> +0 not present
<jtandy> +0 (not there myself)
phila: Meeting was only 15
minutes on 14/9
... Shall we approve TPAC minutes
<joshlieberman> +0 not present for either
phila: Minutes of 14 Sept so trivial, not an issue
-> https://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-sdw-minutes.html TPAC Day 1
-> https://www.w3.org/2016/09/20-sdw-minutes.html Day 2
phila: Some of my scribing around SSN was not good.
<AndreaPerego> Same issue with mine about the joint meeting with WoT IG
kerry: Anyone have an
opinion?
... Day 1 was approved on day 2
kerry: Not appropriate to
reapprove them here
... Any comments on day 2
joshlieberman: Procedural issue -
I'm a little disappointed that the meetings were at the same
time (TPAC and OGC)
... So it was not possible for a number of us to attend the
TPAC F2F.
... It would be helpful therefore to revisit some of the
decisions taken at TPAC. Not to overturn, but to reaffirm
them.
... Don't know what the procedure might be.
kerry: I'm sympathetic, but there
are always meetings one can't attend where decisions are taken.
I'm often in that position myself.
... It's possible to re-look at a decision, but I don't think
we can nobble our decision making process. In last week's SSN
meeting, we went through those SSN decisions in Lisbon
... Yes, we can't all attend al the meetings all the time
phila: Can I suggest you look at
the resolutions from TPAC and raise issues if you think it
necessary.
... Rambles on about raising issues and wanting everyone to be
happy.
kerry: We always ask for agenda items. Please let me know if you want an issue on an agenda.
joshlieberman: So it sounds like
the best thing is to raise an issue?
... That can then serve as an agenda item.
kerry: Yes, but please also ask for it to be put on an agenda at a time that suits you.
<ChrisLittle> NOTUC
<kerry> resolve: approve minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/09/20-sdw-minutes.html
joshlieberman: OGC has the concept of No Objections To Unanimous Consent (NOTUC)
<kerry> patent call: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
RESOLUTION: There being NOTUC, minutes of TPAC Day 2 are approved.
kerry: Time zones are changing for the opposite seasons. It's 00:24 tomorrow here in Canberra.
<ChrisLittle> +1 to new time
kerry: So my suggestion is for plenary meetings to start at 20:00 UTC as of 2 weeks' time.
<ByronCinNZ> Big +1 from me
+1 from me, it's what we're use to. Let's move on
<jtandy> +1
<MattPerry> +1 from me
<AndreaPerego> +1
<joshlieberman> +1
phila: Notes that it's 01:26 tomorrow for ByronCinNZ
jtandy: That's the time for plenary call. The sub groups will continue at the time that makes sense to them.
kerry: Confirmed
<kerry> +1
kerry: The change *only* applies to the plenary calls
<jtandy> thank you
RESOLUTION: Changing time zones: proposed next plenary and following fortnights at 19th October 2016 20:00 GMT i.e http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=SDWWG+Call&iso=20161019T20&p1=1440&ah=1
RESOLUTION: Plenary meetings (only) will move to 20:00 UTC as of 19 October
RESOLUTION: Daylight savings is a terrible idea.
<ChrisLittle> * UTC rules!
phila: makes general warwning about DST not having ended on 19/10 in Europe and US
kerry: We did some final issue
closing at TPAC
... Frans has since actioned those changes and made some
cosmetic changes
... He posted on the list along the lines of "we're ready to
go"
... So we're looking for approval in 2 weeks' time to go ahead
and publish. We expect this to be the final version.
... This is an OCG Discussion Paper/W3C Note
phila: No process issues here. WG has 2 weeks to review.
kerry: State of gthe BP doc is
that it has changed a lot since the previous public WD. Not yet
complete, but has progressed a lot.
... We propose similarly that it will be ready for a public WD
that we can vote on during 19/10 meeting
... What's the stability, Jeremy?
jtandy: All the actions that we
agreed on the end of the 1st day *except* phila's bits
... Bill is working on the glossary and hopes to have it done
my Monday, or it will have to wait until next iteration.
... I'm incorporating Payam's changes on CRSs now
phila: I'm working on it now. Will complete immediately after this meeting.
<scribe> ... Pending Bill's glossary updates.
kerry: So if you, Jeremy, can write to the list when it's ready?
jtandy: I will email the list when we're good to go.
kerry: So I invite everyone to look at it as soon as Jeremy sends that mail.Expcet to vote in 2 week's time.
<AndreaPerego> I would add an item in the agenda of the next call.
kerry: So... with relevant people absent... Oh... Andrea *is* here...
AndreaPerego: The problem is that I wasn't there. It was Ed and Clemens
kerry: OK, we'll bring it back to another agenda.
kerry: Anyone have anything (I do)
<jtandy> nothing from me
kerry: So can I talk about HTTPS?
kerry: The issue is for the time
ontology and SSN et al...
... the question is about the transition to TLS and what that
means for an ontology.
... My view was that is your namepsace is new, you may as well
take the opportunity to move to https
... It's only been there for the lifetime of this group.
... I understood the advice to be to use HTTPS if you're
starting anew.
... It affects the group more broadly
<joshlieberman> Can a webserver not redirect http to https?
<joshlieberman> The user agent needs the root cert in order to accept an https connection...
phila: Maxime raised this at https://github.com/perma-id/w3id.org/issues/528
joshlieberman: There's no
difference in terms of a URI in terms of an id, it's when you
treat it as a URL that issues arise.
... Yes, https is good but there are issues around what the
process is, what the authentication mechanism is etc.
... So I argue for http URIs, provided that the server will
upgrade to https if supported.
phila: That's what we say too,
yes.
... Stick with http and let the smarts handle it - until we
have https everywhere.
kerry: I'm willing to go with the
flow, but it still seems more rational to me to go for https as
we have the opportunity to do so.
... The downside is, if you want a secure resolution... willing
to take advice. Looks like the advice is to use http for
now
<ChrisLittle> +1 for HTTP
PROPOSED: That our vocabularies use HTTP URIs as namespaces
<DanhLePhuoc> +1 for HTTP
<jtandy> +1
<kerry> +1
<ByronCinNZ> +1
+1
<joshlieberman> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<ClausStadler> +1
RESOLUTION: That our vocabularies use HTTP URIs as namespaces
<ChrisLittle> No
<kerry> aob?
kerry: Any other other business?
<jtandy> me says thanks!
<joshlieberman> Phila - now that I've looked at your posts re: HTTP, thanks for letting me parrot them
<AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!
[Adjourned]
<joshlieberman> bye
<kerry> bye!
<ByronCinNZ> bye
<ChrisLittle> Bye