W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-poiwg@w3.org > April 2011

RE: Minutes, 6 April 2011 Teleconference POIWG

From: ȫ <hollobit@etri.re.kr>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 18:22:03 +0900
Message-ID: <03F823891AF33D499971F7DDAB8EAD1704EF95B2@email2>
To: "Matt Womer" <mdw@w3.org>, "public-poiwg W3C" <public-poiwg@w3.org>
Sorry, I can't attend previous telcon due to late time. 

I have finished ACTION-47 - Merge landscape draft and browser draft into one document. 
(merged document: http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/AR_Landscape/Draft)

For next week,  I'm going to participate OMA Sorrento meeting, Italy. 
(I'm planning to contribute to requirements document & architecture document for MobAR)

If possible, I will try to discuss about how to co-work with W3C. 
And also, I'd like to try to update AR Landscape document. 
(Please, Welcome any comment, suggestion, and volunteer for AR Landscape)

Best Regards, 

--- Jonathan Jeon 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-poiwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-poiwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Matt Womer
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 11:28 PM
To: public-poiwg W3C
Subject: Minutes, 6 April 2011 Teleconference POIWG


Hi all,

The minutes for today's teleconference are at:
	http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes

And as text below.

We started the meeting with a review of action items that evolved into a discussion about identifiers, registries, centralization/decentralization, and POI service providers.

The action items generated are as follows:
	Alex to start email thread on possible new call time 
	Andy to find someone within OSM to collaborate with 
	Karl to report to group on what community oriented registries exist and what their governance policies are 
	Karl to work with matt on ACTION-57 
	Matt to update core draft Relationships Primitive to reflect what we learned at the f2f 
	Matt to work on finding an expert to discuss with WG about service oriented details 
	Matt to write up summary of face to face meeting. 
	Raj to look into DNS based POI registry models due two weeks 

Thanks!

-Matt


--
   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

            Points of Interest Working Group Teleconference

06 Apr 2011

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-poiwg/2011Apr/0004

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Matt, Alex, Andy, Raj, Luca, Fons, Karl, cperey, Carsten

   Regrets
          Ronald, Fons, Martin, Carsten, Vinod

   Chair
          Andy

   Scribe
          matt

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Action items
         2. [6]POI relationships, identifiers, registries, and services
         3. [7]Next F2F
         4. [8]More on POI relationships, identifiers, registries, and
            services
     * [9]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

   <trackbot> Date: 06 April 2011

   <cperey> sorry to be late

   <scribe> Scribe: matt

Action items

   -> [10]http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/open Open Actions

     [10] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/open

   Andy: I thought it would be good to review actions.

   <cperey> calling in over skype

   ahill2: Christine and Matt talked about generating a summary of the
   F2F, did that happen?

   cperey: I have been traveling.

   matt: Me neither. I can take an action, or Christine?

   cperey: It'd be useful!

   <scribe> ACTION: Matt to write up summary of face to face meeting.
   [recorded in
   [11]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-52 - Write up summary of face to face
   meeting. [on Matt Womer - due 2011-04-13].

   ACTION-17?

   <trackbot> ACTION-17 -- Karl Seiler to add samples to flesh out the
   Anchor definition in the data model -- due 2010-12-08 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [12]http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/17

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/17

   karls: Not done, I need to catch up on the F2F first.

   ACTION-18?

   <trackbot> ACTION-18 -- Alex Hill to flesh out the 'extent' section
   of the data model -- due 2010-12-13 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [13]http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/18

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/18

   ACTION-18 due next Wednesday

   <trackbot> ACTION-18 Flesh out the 'extent' section of the data
   model due date now next Wednesday

   ahill2: Also not done.

   ACTION-23?

   <trackbot> ACTION-23 -- Gary Gale to scrub wiki and terminology
   pages to reflect consensus notion of location and place terms -- due
   2010-12-22 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [14]http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/23

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/23

   ACTION-23 due next Wednesday

   <trackbot> ACTION-23 Scrub wiki and terminology pages to reflect
   consensus notion of location and place terms due date now next
   Wednesday

   action-25?

   <trackbot> ACTION-25 -- Gary Gale to formalize relationships and
   create some use cases -- due 2011-01-19 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [15]http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/25

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/25

   Andy: I know there were discussion of relationships at the f2f, were
   there use cases created around them?

   -> [16]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/31-poiwg-minutes.html#item09
   Relationships Minutes from F2F

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/31-poiwg-minutes.html#item09

   cperey: It was treated at the f2f on the third day. I would say
   close the item and create a new one that reflects the minutes.

   karls: Does the same apply to the anchor and extent definitions?

   cperey: We didn't treat those subjects at the f2f.

   close ACTION-25

   <trackbot> ACTION-25 Formalize relationships and create some use
   cases closed

   ->
   [17]http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Core/Draft#Relationship_primitiv
   e Relationship Primitive in Core

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Core/Draft#Relationship_primitive

   matt: I think this is my duty as temporary editor to go through f2f
   minutes and make sure the draft reflects that now.

   cperey: We had a great discussion on this, comparing it to OSM. At
   OSM they're not clustered, but can be sequenced, etc.

   ahill2: I think we got a real sense of the difference between the
   hammer that is OSM and what people think of as POIs. How that turns
   into a reformulation of relationships is a TBD.

POI relationships, identifiers, registries, and services

   <scribe> ACTION: Matt to update core draft Relationships Primitive
   to reflect what we learned at the f2f [recorded in
   [18]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action02]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-53 - Update core draft Relationships
   Primitive to reflect what we learned at the f2f [on Matt Womer - due
   2011-04-13].

   cperey: We have an opportunity to create relationships that don't
   break OSM's policies. Not saying how, but the knowledge from that
   subject is there.

   ahill2: I concur that yes, I think one of the outcomes of this is
   that we develop the notion of relationships in POI that is sensitive
   to the types of relationships that OSM considers and that we can be
   clear on delineating differences there, rather than before where we
   would have just stumbled into it.

   karls: Do we have a member of the group who has that kind of insight
   to OSM?

   <cperey> proposed meeting to foster relationships with OSM commnity
   in September

   <cperey> Jacques provided a tutorial on OSM on third day. Helped to
   frame the context o OSM

   matt: I think Jacques is closest to the data. Plus we've got on the
   list of potential F2F locations as one that's co-located with the
   OSM meeting in September (also co-located with OGC)

   <cperey> good little primer and a lot of people better understand
   the situation with OSM

   ahill2: On the third day we got a primer on OSM from Jacques. He
   would say it's simple, what else is there to say.

   <cperey> we could ask him to provide the tutorial as an invited
   topic?

   matt: With OSM we should be careful though, as we have different
   concerns. We can just update our database if we change something,
   we're distributed, etc.

   Raj: Was there any talk of linked data and OSM?

   ahill2: It's a single database, and people are building on top of
   it, but when we asked if people are linking across data, he didn't
   think that was something that happened.
   ... e.g. you might build an app on top of OSM that has a level of
   abstraction on top of it, but he didn't really have a good answer
   for linking between data bases and referring to IDs outside of the
   one OSM database.

   -> [19]http://linkedgeodata.org/About Linked Geo Data

     [19] http://linkedgeodata.org/About

   matt: We did talk about linkedgeodata, which is extracting OSM data
   and making it linked data friendly.

   ahill2: They also provide a SPARQL API.

   matt: And a REST API.

   Raj: So OSM is successful but people when building their apps are
   what, copying the data and building on top of it?

   karls: How do you mean copying?

   Raj: For instance, Google is supposedly using OSM data, but I doubt
   they're hitting OSM servers, they're downloading the data
   presumably.
   ... In other words apps aren't using it online, they're copying it
   and building apps on top.

   ahill2: I think that's a fair description.

   matt: Certainly on large apps.

   karls: I can understand Jacques pause. It relates to ID management
   outside of the database.
   ... Our stuff will be going across many data sources. We got to
   unique URIs.

   ahill2: One topic was how to engage the OSM community. It's
   organized in a different manner than say OGC.
   ... Jacques was encouraging us to get in the forums, etc. But that
   doesn't really give us someone to engage with, to invite into the
   group and collaborate with us.

   <cperey> +1 to this recommendation/and the lack of someone to
   contribute

   <scribe> ACTION: Andy to find someone within OSM to collaborate with
   [recorded in
   [20]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action03]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-54 - Find someone within OSM to
   collaborate with [on Andrew Braun - due 2011-04-13].

   <cperey> I'm just preparing the "how to invite experts to contribute
   to our domain knowledge" (one of my action items)

   Raj: We need more people at the table, Facebook, Gowalla, etc.
   Talked with someone from Simple Geo, and he had problems with this.
   The barriers are high right now.

   Andy: I talked to both Gowalla and Foursquare and I don't think
   either of them have the bandwidth to participate in creating the
   documents.
   ... Foursquare is interested in reviewing. As we get drafts it's
   worth sending it to them, but I don't think they have the bandwidth.

   Raj: I think we can get over bandwidth hurdles if we can get real
   commitment and interest.

   ahill2: We had some discussion of this at the F2F about
   participation.

   -> [21]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-poiwg-minutes.html#item05 Some
   participation discussion

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/29-poiwg-minutes.html#item05

   ahill2: I've heard some motivation of being able to brand data as
   W3C compliant, but I can't imagine that's a strong motivating factor
   to smaller companies.
   ... We have to be sensitive to some of those motivations.

   fons: I just had a discussion with someone at TomTom, and it seems
   that they are interested in at least participating in the WG. I
   tried to get them to become a W3C member first, but if they can't do
   that, then it might be interesting to have them in the WG as an
   invited member.

   karls: From Nokia/NAVTEQ/MS, I think anyone in the map business is
   very interested in facilitating local search. The hinge point there
   is on POI definitions. We're all looking to build the largest most
   robust POI database.
   ... We need standards for that to ensure the widest participation.
   We're very interested in making this work.

   Andy: I think there is lots of interest from big guys, but smaller
   ones don't have the same motivation to build the largest data set.
   Their stuff is community driven, etc.

   karls: We might start with commercial data, but our end goal is to
   have community.

   Raj: That's a great statement. I think we don't need every one of
   them, but I think we need more sides of the coin here. Otherwise,
   we'll keep going around in circles about the core data definition.

   karls: Makes sense to me.

   ahill2: Karl, can you elaborate a bit? You've got a proprietary
   database of POIs and you would like to have a product that is
   drawing POIs from other sources on the fly and that that would be a
   good motivation for a standard?
   ... Or do you want it easier for you to purchase POIs or acquire it
   that it comes in in a palatable way for integration into the
   database?

   karls: There's an arc we are projecting. We're trying to build out
   platforms that we can put in a consortium space that is a single
   unified repository for places, locations and relationships. We're
   going to feed that content with anything we can license to get to
   critical mass as fast as possible -- you have to achieve a tipping
   point in volume for it to attract users -- but once that is hit, the
   intent is that it is open.
   ... We could extend the base records we have with licensed data for
   instance.
   ... But that last part is not what we should strive towards. A
   standard that drives us toward participation is what we need.
   ... We've got islands of information that we want to bridge.

   Raj: That sounds like a great business use case.
   ... Something like that could drive the core data format. e.g. we
   could have where the location is in the standard, but maybe the open
   hours changing could be a proprietary extension.

   karls: Could be. We really also want to facilitate in a wikipedia
   way the repair of the database.
   ... The standard needs to allow to happen or provide governance on
   change management.
   ... POI have much shorter shelf life than maps.
   ... Extensibility and flexibility are important too.

   Raj: Change management to me requires unique IDs to me. What if
   change management came out of updating those URIs? Maybe it doesn't
   take a huge data model just a few key things.

   karls: If we could figure that out it would be a real accelerant for
   the whole thing.

   ahill2: Can you elaborate on that a bit Raj? A simple example?

   Raj: We can't predict ahead of time everything that could go into a
   POI, but say we put 90% of our energy into the unique ID. A point
   location, a name, a start and end time. Then when people want to
   collaborate they know they are talking about the same object because
   they have a unique ID.

   karls: We've talked about DNS IDs.

   Raj: if the unique ID were in there, the rest could fall out from
   that.

   ahill2: We had a lot of discussion with Thomas Wrobel and Dan
   Brickley about semantic entities like dbpedia, etc that are
   providing unique URIs to known things.
   ... e.g. a URI for a horse, cow, dog, etc. I took away from that
   that instead of a single registry there might be a couple, e.g.
   dbpedia, library of congress, etc.
   ... Each managed in some sense like wikpedia, etc. Then there's a
   more rigid model of DNS like. Which direction should we go?

   Carsten: I think you can push the wider model open by saying you
   don't have a registry, just the Web itself. Lifecycle management is
   harder on the Web, but strong on DNS.
   ... I think this is the right direction: minimal data model, effort
   on unique ID and making sure the data can be linked up.

   karls: I agree with everyone that the ID, any work we can do around
   that is the anchor. Rich location definition is important too.
   Relationships, being open ended, is important too.
   ... I don't think we can go far beyond ID, location, relationships
   and attributes.

   Raj: In the DNS model if we had some governance people could get
   their unique ID for a POI and then it gets propagated around the
   world.

   karls: That's what Navteq is building in their POI registry. They
   intend to not own that in the long haul, that it should go into a
   consortium controlled space.

   ahill2: In DNS you get competition for different domains, etc. Can
   anyone comment on what they think on that?
   ... We want a model where it's not owned, right?

   Raj: Right. Who owns DNS? ICANN? And Wikipedia is governed by an
   organization, and has a lot of governance. If you put a bad article
   up there they won't publish it.

   karls: Content moderation is key, current and accurate is immensely
   valuable.
   ... I think the standard should support the basic construct of
   changes, owners, etc.
   ... Timestamps to know that it is current and accurate.

   <cperey> +1 on that

   <cperey> moving from a data-oriented discusion to a services
   oriented discussion

   matt: We talked a lot at the f2f about talking in terms of HTTP and
   XML. I think we won't have to define lots of stuff around this, but
   provide guidance, e.g. "if POI data changes, when the URI is
   dereferenced, this HTTP header is produced to redirect to the
   updated one, cache tags are used, etc."
   ... This stuff we need to do to make it fit in the Web architecture
   needs to be figured out, not just the data.

   Raj/karls: This sounds like we're moving from data defining to
   service defining.

   karls: If we can't imagine that the standard doesn't facilitate the
   creation of a consortium that has governance over the quality, then
   I think we haven't hit the mark.

   <cperey> I cannot extend

   <cperey> no problem

Next F2F

   ->
   [22]http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Face_to_Face_Meetings/2011_Futur
   e_Face_to_Face_Meetings Options for F2F

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Face_to_Face_Meetings/2011_Future_Face_to_Face_Meetings

   -> [23]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/45386/POI-F2F-2011-2-choices/
   F2F choices

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/45386/POI-F2F-2011-2-choices/

   matt: details options

   cperey: In addition, there is an AR Standards meeting in Taiwan, on
   June ??. Karl will be there, and Martin, maybe Jonathan and Jim?
   ... My hope is that regardless of where it is, having a meeting
   hosted in conjunction with another event is highly desirable.

   matt: I updated the f2f poll to reflect AR standard smeeting too.

   cperey: When/where does the group want to work on the drafts, and
   when/where does the group want to interface with other groups and
   share?

   Raj: Is there an option for four?

   matt: Sure. We say 2-3 in the charter, but that's to estimate how
   much time people can spend, if the group wants to meet more, sure.

More on POI relationships, identifiers, registries, and services

   ahill2: It has been unclear up until now how the format will be
   used. This discussion about registry makes a lot of sense.
   ... I think the service idea is quite compelling.

   <Carsten> Got to go as well, bye

   matt: Maybe someone can take an action to look at current proposals
   for registry type stuff? And maybe another for how this stuff can
   fit in the Web architecture?

   Raj: Sounds very open ended?

   matt: Just starter stuff.

   ahill2: Could someone report back on registries out there? I know
   they are known to people, but maybe a listing of various dbpedias,
   library of congress and other attempts to create registries of POIs?
   Maybe some commentary on policies? How they manage change?
   Centralized authority? Editorial board? Vote up/down?

   karls: I'll take that action. I'm building out a content management
   group as we speak, and so have had some look at things similar to
   this.

   <scribe> ACTION: karls to report to group on what community oriented
   registries exist and what their governance policies are [recorded in
   [24]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action04]

   <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - karls

   <scribe> ACTION: karl to report to group on what community oriented
   registries exist and what their governance policies are [recorded in
   [25]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action05]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-55 - Report to group on what community
   oriented registries exist and what their governance policies are [on
   Karl Seiler - due 2011-04-13].

   <scribe> ACTION: Raj to look into DNS based POI registry models due
   two weeks [recorded in
   [26]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action06]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - Look into DNS based POI registry
   models due two weeks [on Raj Singh - due 2011-04-13].

   ahill2: We've talked about having experts come in to discuss things
   we don't understand fully. Creating a service, I don't have the
   experience for that. Maybe we can get an expert in for that?

   <scribe> ACTION: matt to work on finding an expert to discuss with
   WG about service oriented details [recorded in
   [27]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action07]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-57 - Work on finding an expert to discuss
   with WG about service oriented details [on Matt Womer - due
   2011-04-13].

   <scribe> ACTION: Karl to work with matt on ACTION-57 [recorded in
   [28]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action08]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-58 - Work with matt on ACTION-57 [on Karl
   Seiler - due 2011-04-13].

   karls: I'll help Matt with that one.

   ahill2: I assume OSM is one of the names involved in this, at least
   for consideration.

   matt: Sure.

   -> [29]http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/open Open Actions

     [29] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/open

   matt: Everyone please review action items! Close them if need be, or
   open new ones or whatever.

   <scribe> ACTION: Alex to start email thread on possible new call
   time [recorded in
   [30]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action09]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-59 - Start email thread on possible new
   call time [on Alex Hill - due 2011-04-13].

   <karls> adios amigos

   action-50?

   <trackbot> ACTION-50 -- Christine Perey to determine which OGC WGs
   are meeting at OGC TC in June -- due 2011-04-07 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [31]http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/50

     [31] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/actions/50

   trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Alex to start email thread on possible new call time
   [recorded in
   [32]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action09]
   [NEW] ACTION: Andy to find someone within OSM to collaborate with
   [recorded in
   [33]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action03]
   [NEW] ACTION: karl to report to group on what community oriented
   registries exist and what their governance policies are [recorded in
   [34]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action05]
   [NEW] ACTION: Karl to work with matt on ACTION-57 [recorded in
   [35]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action08]
   [NEW] ACTION: karls to report to group on what community oriented
   registries exist and what their governance policies are [recorded in
   [36]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action04]
   [NEW] ACTION: Matt to update core draft Relationships Primitive to
   reflect what we learned at the f2f [recorded in
   [37]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action02]
   [NEW] ACTION: matt to work on finding an expert to discuss with WG
   about service oriented details [recorded in
   [38]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action07]
   [NEW] ACTION: Matt to write up summary of face to face meeting.
   [recorded in
   [39]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action01]
   [NEW] ACTION: Raj to look into DNS based POI registry models due two
   weeks [recorded in
   [40]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-poiwg-minutes.html#action06]

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [41]scribe.perl version 1.133
    ([42]CVS log)
    $Date: 2011/04/06 14:23:42 $

     [41] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [42] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 09:22:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:48:28 UTC