Minutes POI Teleconference 12 May 2011

Hi all,

The minutes for today's teleconference are here:

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.



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

                               - DRAFT -

            Points of Interest Working Group Teleconference

12 May 2011


      [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


          Matt, +31.20.592.aaaa, fons, ahill2, Carl_Reed, robman,
          +1.919.599.aabb, Andy

          Cperey, Jens, Ronald




     * [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: 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
   ... 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


   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

   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


   <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: 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


   <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

   <matt> <point latitude="42.360890561289295"

   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

   matt: simple things simple, hard things possible

   <andy> +1

   carl would you repeat the standard you mentioned is getting used by

   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

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-77 - Work on ISSUE-27 [on Rob Manson - due

   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

   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

   <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

   <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].


   <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


   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

   <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
   [NEW] ACTION: Andy to review RFC 5870 for ISSUE-37 [recorded in
   [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
   [NEW] ACTION: manson to work on ISSUE-27 [recorded in
   [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

   [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

     [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
Found Date: 12 May 2011
Guessing minutes URL: [40]http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.ht
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