jtandy: I recognise everyone on the IRC and WebEx
… Let's deal with the Patent Call
Resolved: Previous week's minutes approved
jtandy: BP1 - no Josh today. Any e-mail from him?
jtandy: You said you had BP1 under control
joshlieberman: I may not have used those terms but I'm working on a branch.
jtandy: Will BP1 make it to a PR before tomorrow morning Europe
jtandy: Of the 2 you have, BP9 is the priority - we know what to do about BP1, it's 9 that needs more work.
… So, will there be a BP1 pull request before tomorrow morning.
joshlieberman: I'm working on BP9 but will have something on BP1 before tomorrow
jtandy: In the plenary, we said we could remove BP2 which I think I can now go ahead and remove
… There's an open issue about the URN stuff that we need to put in the conclusions. But I think I can delete BP2
… Looking at next sprint. I see the open challenges to go into expressing units
… Is anyone not happy with deleting BP2 later today?>
Action: jtandy To remove BP2
<trackbot> Created ACTION-287 - Remove bp2 [on Jeremy Tandy - due 2017-03-22].
jtandy: back to the detailed planning spring
jtandy: Andrea has been very busy and working late
… Got another couple of changes to make this evening. Expecting pull request shortly
… Looking good IMO
Linda: It's becoming a clear BP with useful actionable info
jtandy: I bring people's attention to a note from Bill who says he may be here but will be late
jtandy: He, Linda and I have been chatting about what he's been doing with BP10
jtandy: That's what Bill has beenn doing so far
<joshlieberman> Re: BP-9 the Guildford example confuses relative and approximate, but I (no londoner) cannot figure out the location being referenced. Help?
jtandy: There are some significant updates there.
… There will be a continuation of BP10 in the next sprint
… Introduction of the same place as a property - TBD in Delft
jtandy: Linda has pointed out that there have been so many updates it's now about 3 BPs. Lots to talk about in Delft.
… We'll be talking about how to put things in the right order.
jtandy: This will be merged with BP10
billroberts: Yes, I am aiming to submit a pull request this evening for a half decent attempt at BP10
billroberts: That will mean deleting BP16 and leaving a place holder
jtandy: As you're here, AndreaPerego - we note that BP8 is looking a lot better than before. Are you expecting to put in a new PR?
AndreaPerego: It depends on the timing.
… When do we freeze?
jtandy: Can you, Linda, merge any PRs tomorrow morning
Action: Linda to merge outstanding pull requests, Thursday 16th a.m.
<trackbot> Created ACTION-288 - Merge outstanding pull requests, thursday 16th a.m. [on Linda van den Brink - due 2017-03-22].
jtandy: 07:00 UTC is the target time
AndreaPerego: The points that are still open still require some consideration
… Not sure if it will be done by tomorrow
jtandy: IIRC, there are some small changes. Others that need more, I'm content that they continue into the next sprint
AndreaPerego: Small changes, no problem
jtandy: After the merge, can you send an e-mail to the list to say the doc is frozen ahead of a vote on Monday
Linda: Anything else, like the status section?
jtandy: That can be done Monday onwards
jtandy: Clemens has done
… More on CRS has been done and is stable
… Byron you made some inroads into ??
ByronCinNZ: I'm happy with that's been happening
jtandy: So 3 and 17 are good.
Linda: I just changed the title a little and added two examples
… One is of changing municipality boundaries
… the other is about Alps
… for the rest, I think BP6 is done.
jtandy: We're leaving stubs in the doc to retain numbering
… Ed has put some stuff into the CRS introductory material about engineering practice
joshlieberman: I don't have it to show you, but I'm going to introduce perspectives from AR to discuss relative to a stationary, moving object anda perspective
… Those are the three things
joshlieberman: There's an example at the beginning of the doc about Guildford and London Bridge which I find confusing.
jtandy: Go for different examples - that'll be easier.
jtandy: There's not a lot of stuff in BP9 to date. I think the floor is yours.
jtandy: We're expecting a PR this evening
jtandy: I havea an action to do that, which will be there for you to merge tomorrow
jtandy: That one has gone, as have 12 and 13
jtandy: Plan says that was for you to remove Linda.
Linda: I can do it tomorrow before the merges
jtandy: The material won't go away, it'll be in GH, but that should just work.
Linda: Should I leave a stub?
jtandy: I don't think so.
… I left a stub for appendix B but thgat's all
jtandy: Talks about other BPs. We'll leave this as it is. It's for BPs that haven't bene put in place yet
… So that can stay
jtandy: We'll get rid of the section on the next sprint.
jtandy: Linda has handled the ReSpec 'errors'
jtandy: So we're looking health for this sprint - thank you.
Linda: I think it's the best sprint yet
jtandy: we're getting faster at the end of the marathon
jtandy: BP8 and 10 will have work in the next sprint
<Zakim> AndreaPerego, you wanted to talk about two missing things in BP8
AndreaPerego: Just to say... 2 things missing from BP8 - comments by Clemens and Josh in the calls.
… There wasn't time to do this, but I'd appreciate time from them both to see if what I've doine is OK, if not, what else needs to be done
jtandy: This is, I think, about not using a literal on its own, but wrapping it inside a geometry object
joshlieberman: Yes, distinguish position from geometry
… Better to have a geometry that has accessible properties
jtandy: So Josh can you pls talk to Andrea offline - this won't make this sprint
AndreaPerego: I'd like to include what I can
joshlieberman: Should we insert an issue?
jtandy: Andrea feel free to if you want to
AndreaPerego: We can do it via the mailing list. For tracking purposes I guess it's better, so I'll do that.
<jtandy> In our calls, Josh mentioned that "best practice" is that where geometry literals are used (e.g. WKT, GML etc.) you should that wrap these in _geometry objects_ that provide a little metadata about that geometry; e.g. dimensionality, CRS etc. This avoids having to load another parser to determine if the geometry is useful. GML does this to some degree in the @attributes srsName, srsDimension, axisLabels etc. I think Josh was referring to similar constructs
<jtandy> such as GeoSPARQL's geosparql:Geometry class which may have the following attributes: geo:dimension, geo:coordinateDimension, geo:spatialDimension, geo:isEmpty, geo:isSimple, geo:hasSerialization
jtandy: I just inserted the text I gave you as feedback
AndreaPerego: We have a placeholder at the end of BP8
joshlieberman: I'll compose an e-mail that we can work from
jtandy: Thank you Andrea
jtandy: For those on the call...
… Who will be there?
<billroberts> Tuesday only
<AndreaPerego> I'll be there, but have to leave at 5PM on Tue.
<joshlieberman> josh will be present, but in and out due to other sessions.
phila: I've not heard whether Simon is or isn't going to be there
Linda: I guess not
jtandy: The meeting page...
jtandy: You'll see that we have a draft agenda which is a list of topics.
… SSN have the first 90 minutes, then we take a generous break
… and we start the BP work and go to the end of the day.
jtandy: What I propose is that on the day, we shuffle those into the right order
jtandy: Let's make sure we're not missing anything we want to talk about in Delft
jtandy: Interoperability problems. Like conneg doesn't always work
jtandy: I guess the new WG might solve that
jtandy: Profile will be able to select on CRS etc
jtandy: We need to review our outsanding comments
jtandy: Payam read through the list
… 8 comments to deal with, one very long
… A lot of them will be time expired - but we'll need to go through them
jtandy: We need to spend time on the final sprint plan
… I've written in a use case and requirements review to make sure we haven't forgotten anything
jtandy: We should do it, but not necessarily in Delft.
jtandy: We said we'd deal with spatial operators, which we haven't
jtandy: The same place as proposal, we'll look at
… That's now in BP14
jtandy: Since I wrote that, I noticed in the OS Ireland data, they use a relationship from open vocabs called similarTo
… positioned between owl:sameAs and rdfs:seeAlso
jtandy: How many open issues do we have
jtandy: Would you be able to prioritise them before Monday?
Linda: I think I can do that
joshlieberman: Spatial rels and operators - have we covered everything
… Maybe we should say that in some areas we have concluded that there is no BP that we can cite
… e.g. geoSPARQL - we can put this into future work
<joshlieberman> Re: spatial relations - it's largely a timing issue with modularizing / simplifying GeoSPARQL 1.0, so a very concrete wish for next group.
phila: Talks about the wish list and why it's useful for possible future work
jtandy: The parts I talked about - defining open issues etc. might be the basis
<billroberts> sorry, got to go. See most of you in Delft
jtandy: Also, we need to make sure that we have a quick pass through all the examples and BPs that we have so far and categorise them into BP and good ideas
jtandy: I guess we should vote early and then get on with the next sprint
jtandy: Any more issues to add to the list?
phila: Yes, there will be remote participation options. I'll set up the WebEx straight after this meeting
phila: Remember that the US is already on DST
Linda: I have a slight scheduling conflict as I'm supposed to be at the opening plenary
jtandy: Discusses Delft agenda with everyone
<jtandy> bye for now