- From: Matt Womer <mdw@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:09:51 -0400
- To: public-poiwg W3C <public-poiwg@w3.org>
Hi all,
The minutes for today's teleconference are here:
http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.html
There were a few important topics:
1. We re-approved publication with edits made from last week. The FPWD should go out today.
2. We doled out actions based on the easiest issues in the issue tracker
3. We (albiet briefly) welcomed Rob Manson to the WG!
The following actions were generated:
ACTION: Andy to resolve whether we are going to Budapest or not
ACTION: Andy to review RFC 5870 for ISSUE-37
ACTION: Carl to look at ISSUE-22 ISSUE-20 ISSUE-21
ACTION: karl to address ISSUE-32
ACTION: manson to work on ISSUE-27
ACTION: matt to look at ISSUE-41 and report back on which we should use: xml:lang and ISO MARC Alpha 3
Note that I've started assigning actions to people who are not on the call. If you want further nagging, you can turn on emails when actions are created for you by visiting your action item page in the tracker.
-Matt
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Points of Interest Working Group Teleconference
12 May 2011
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-poiwg/2011May/0041.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-irc
Attendees
Present
Matt, +31.20.592.aaaa, fons, ahill2, Carl_Reed, robman,
+1.919.599.aabb, Andy
Regrets
Cperey, Jens, Ronald
Chair
Andy
Scribe
ahill2
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]The FPWD process
2. [6]Open Issues
* [7]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 12 May 2011
<andy> i am not 25
<andy> different and new andy?
<andy> ok
<matt> scribe: ahill2
The FPWD process
<matt> [8]previous minutes
[8] http://www.w3.org/2011/05/05-poiwg-minutes.html
matt: I added 30 issues to push forward the first working draft
<matt> [9]tracker
[9] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/
<robman> thanks...i've had a good look around 8)
matt: I've made some changes to the working draft, related to four
actions, that are necessary before publishing
<matt>
matt: welcome to Rob Manson, new Invited Expert
<matt> [10]Newest draft
[10] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/documents/Core/core-20110511.html
Matt: The previous core draft has been changed to a listing of the
core drafts
... I added numerous definitiions, removed the map georeference,
dropped the XML syntax for address, introduced the object primitive
(not mapped to XML), and tried to link things up to their issue
... prettied up the XML table, borke out POI and POI elements, made
note about uncertaintly of container objects
... added change in section 4.4 reference the WGS84 coordinate
system
... made a comment about "points" (i.e. do we want to put latitude
and lognitude by order or specific elements
... the atom category element only allowed for one, but I tried to
address this
... incorporated a lot of comments from Leigh into the XML examples
... appendix A includes the sue cases from the Wiki
use
matt: trying to use a tool that generates links to existing
standards - once completed this will remove the red error boxes
carl: in the future when I submit comments, how should I go about
it?
mattt: create a new thread on the public poi mailing list for each
issue (i.e "here are our thoughts on time primitive")
matt: is would be nice is you can find a related issue and add
something like "ISSUE-/14" in the subject line
it would be
matt: I just found the EPG information in the sidebar, I may have to
tweak the document before publishing today
<matt> [11]blog on editor's draft
[11] http://www.w3.org/blog/POI/2011/05/03/poi-core-editors-draft-released/
matt: again, this is just the first public working draft and the bar
is relatively low - see link
... pushing out the editors draft already has generated a lot of
feedback. so we can expect this publication to build momentum and
bring in other voices
... I wasn't able to get the object primitive that Christine pushed
into the document; and understand from her this might alienate some
from the AR crowd
<andy> +1 to moving foward
<robman> +1
+1
<fons> +1
<matt> RESOLUTION: WG will publish FPWD today
<andy> sticking on mute with phone issue for now
matt: we have resolved to publish the FPWD today
<andy> lets do that
Open Issues
<matt>
matt: ok, going with open issues
<matt> [12]Raised Issues
[12] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/raised
matt: issues are first raised, then they can be opened, then a
pending review, otherwised postponed
<andy> +1
matt: I suggest we just use raised and closed, please ignore other
stateds
states
<matt> issue-19?
<trackbot> ISSUE-19 -- How should we represent points? -- raised
<trackbot> [13]http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/19
[13] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/19
<matt> issue-20?
<trackbot> ISSUE-20 -- How should we represent lines? -- raised
<trackbot> [14]http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/20
[14] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/20
does anyone on the call have an issue they want to discuss?
<matt> issue-21?
<trackbot> ISSUE-21 -- How should we specify the coordinate system
used? -- raised
<trackbot> [15]http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/21
[15] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/21
matt: these issues relate to how to represent points and polygons
<matt> For example: <gml:Point><gml:pos>42.360890561289295
-71.09139204025269</gml:pos></gml:Point>
<matt> <point latitude="42.360890561289295"
longitude="-71.09139204025269"/>
don't these "paths" tend to be separate formats than a single point?
<matt> ISO19907
carl: the GML is grounded in ISO19907
... GML also uses the same base as geojson
... the order of latitude and longitude depends on the coordinate
system being used
<robman> +1 to linking geo param ordering on crs
<matt> ISSUE-22?
<trackbot> ISSUE-22 -- How should we represent polygons? -- raised
<trackbot> [16]http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/22
[16] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/22
carl: in China, legally you canot use WGS84, but their government
system happens to be similar
... for polygon geometry, Raj submitted the GML encoding because it
is consistent with ISO19907
<matt> ACTION: Carl to look at ISSUE-22 ISSUE-20 ISSUE-21 [recorded
in [17]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-76 - Look at ISSUE-22 ISSUE-20 ISSUE-21
[on Carl Reed - due 2011-05-19].
certainly have no investment in re-inventing this wheel
matt: while we don't want to reinvent, we do have some
responsibility to making this consumable and usable by the average
web developer
<robman> carl - does GML handle relative points or just crs defined
geolocations?
matt: simple things simple, hard things possible
<andy> +1
carl would you repeat the standard you mentioned is getting used by
developers?
carl: in the current implementation, developers could change the
default coordinate system, but the default remains WGS84
<andy> +1
<andy> to only use international standards
carl: we got some suggestions for using X and Y, but since there
wasn't any international standard we had to reject that
rob; doe GML support relative objects?
carl: yes, relative and moving objects
can we get a link to an example of this?
<matt> ISSUE-27?
<trackbot> ISSUE-27 -- What issues arise from using namespaces in
the XML serialization? -- raised
<trackbot> [18]http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/27
[18] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/27
<robman> serialisation
matt: there was some concern about using external namespaces because
it doesn't map into JSON
... obviously there is a broader concern about breaking some use
cases like JSON, etc.
<andy> assign me some thing
<matt> ACTION: manson to work on ISSUE-27 [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-77 - Work on ISSUE-27 [on Rob Manson - due
2011-05-19].
matt: if you raised an issue and I created it, doesn't mean I was
trying to take the credit (or blame)
<matt> ISSUE-32?
<trackbot> ISSUE-32 -- Does map georeference side definition need
additional info? -- raised
<trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/32
[20] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/32
<matt> ACTION: karl to address ISSUE-32 [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.html#action03]
matt: anyone want to take this issue on?
<trackbot> Created ACTION-78 - Address ISSUE-32 [on Karl Seiler -
due 2011-05-19].
<matt> ISSUE-37?
<matt> ISSUE-37?
<trackbot> ISSUE-37 -- Should we use geo URIs? -- raised
<trackbot> [22]http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/37
[22] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/37
matt: don't think we understand geo uri's are
<trackbot> ISSUE-37 -- Should we use geo URIs? -- raised
<matt> [23]GeoURIs RFC
[23] http://tools.ietf.org/search/rfc5870
<trackbot> [24]http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/37
[24] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/37
<andy> ok
<andy> sure
<matt> ACTION: Andy to review RFC 5870 for ISSUE-37 [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-79 - Review RFC 5870 for ISSUE-37 [on
Andrew Braun - due 2011-05-19].
matt: the document is unfriendly and it suggests an alternate way to
reference latitude and longitude
the RTF document
<matt> ISSUE-41?
<trackbot> ISSUE-41 -- Which language codes should we use? -- raised
<trackbot> [26]http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/41
[26] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/41
matt: agenda item language codes
... I wasn't comfortable bringing a lot of XML specific things up
into the data model
... the the ISO Mark III language specs has much to do with
transactions systems
<matt> ACTION: matt to look at ISSUE-41 and report back on which we
should use: xml:lang and ISO MARC Alpha 3 [recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-80 - Look at ISSUE-41 and report back on
which we should use: xml:lang and ISO MARC Alpha 3 [on Matt Womer -
due 2011-05-19].
+q
<robman> yes pls
<robman> 8)
matt: let's talk a little bit about actions and issues
... actions are specific goals (i.e. do xy and z)
... issues are broader and you can break an issue up into a number
of actions
... the mechanics are that we have this web-based tracker
... it looks for content like "ACTION-\14" and inserts links into
the mailing list and irc when possible
I'm escaping to avoid confusion
<robman> is there any specific deliverable format for actions? or at
least types
alex: do we need a conference call to "resolve" and issue?
matt: some other groups use extra fields in the issues to handle
contentious issues
... we can trust individuals to close their own action items
<robman> cool
<robman> what you said was good
matt: people should send a mail to the group saying " hey I've
completed this action #"
last longer when you are scribing
matt: we are having trouble getting Budapest meeting space with the
OMA meeting
... Andy is leaning towards the Denver OGS meeting in September
+q
when is OMA?
<matt> [28]poll results
[28] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/45386/POI-F2F-2011-2-choices/results
<robman> sorry but i have to leave - talk to you all next time and
see some of you at ARE
<robman> works for me...bye
<matt> [[Budapest, Hungary, before, during, or after OMA's member
meeting June 27-July 1]]
<matt> ahill2: We need to resolve this soon.
<matt> ACTION: Andy to resolve whether we are going to Budapest or
not [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-81 - Resolve whether we are going to
Budapest or not [on Andrew Braun - due 2011-05-19].
<fons> I will not attend next weeks telco, being on a return trip
from Bilbao
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Andy to resolve whether we are going to Budapest or
not [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: Andy to review RFC 5870 for ISSUE-37 [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Carl to look at ISSUE-22 ISSUE-20 ISSUE-21 [recorded
in [32]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: karl to address ISSUE-32 [recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: manson to work on ISSUE-27 [recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: matt to look at ISSUE-41 and report back on which we
should use: xml:lang and ISO MARC Alpha 3 [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.html#action05]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [36]scribe.perl version 1.136
([37]CVS log)
$Date: 2011/05/12 15:55:56 $
_________________________________________________________
[36] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[37] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Scribe.perl diagnostic output
[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43
Check for newer version at [38]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002
/scribe/
[38] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/
Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)
Found Scribe: ahill2
Inferring ScribeNick: ahill2
Default Present: Matt, +31.20.592.aaaa, fons, ahill2, Carl_Reed, robman
, +1.919.599.aabb, Andy
Present: Matt +31.20.592.aaaa fons ahill2 Carl_Reed robman +1.919.599.a
abb Andy
Regrets: Cperey Jens Ronald
Agenda: [39]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-poiwg/2011May/00
41.html
Found Date: 12 May 2011
Guessing minutes URL: [40]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.ht
ml
People with action items: andy carl karl manson matt
[39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-poiwg/2011May/0041.html
[40] http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.html
WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.
End of [41]scribe.perl diagnostic output]
[41] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2011 16:09:56 UTC