W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > July 2015

[Minutes] 2017-07-01

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 15:06:43 +0100
Message-ID: <5593F3F3.6050909@w3.org>
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
The minutes of today's call are at 
http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes. A snapshot is provided below.

Thanks to Josh for scribing.


           Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

01 Jul 2015

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-irc

Attendees

    Present
           eparsons, jtandy, MattPerry, Alejandro_Llaves,
           joshlieberman, ahaller2, kerry, SimonCox, LarsG, Rachel,
           IanHolt, cory, Cory, ThiagoAvila, PhilA

    Regrets
           Andrea_Perego, Bart_van_Leeuwen, Chris_Little,
           Clemens_Portele, Frans, Rachel_Heaven, payam, Bill

    Chair
           Ed

    Scribe
           joshlieberman

Contents

      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]Approve Minutes
          2. [5]Patent Call
          3. [6]Combined CRS Issues
          4. [7]ANOB
      * [8]Summary of Action Items
      __________________________________________________________

    <trackbot> Date: 01 July 2015

    preent+ joshlieberman

    <phila> scribe: joshlieberman

Approve Minutes

    <eparsons> [9]http://www.w3.org/2015/06/24-sdw-minutes.html

       [9] http://www.w3.org/2015/06/24-sdw-minutes.html

    <eparsons> PROPOSED: Accept last weeks minutes

    <eparsons> +1

    <MattPerry> +1

    <Alejandro_Llaves> +1

    joshlieberman wasn't on the call

    <kerry> +1

    <eparsons> RESOLVED: Accept last week's minutes

    <SimonCox> SimonCox not present

Patent Call

    <eparsons> [10]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

      [10] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call

Combined CRS Issues

    <eparsons> 1)The CRS Definition requirement currently in the
    UCR document should be rephrased. This is what ISSUE-10 is
    about. The proposal for new wording is "There should be a
    recommended way of referencing a CRS with a HTTP URI, and to
    get useful information about the CRS when that URI is
    dereferenced."

    <SimonCox> Do we need the word 'recommended'?

    jtandy: good to avoid parse-able URI

    <phila> phila: Notes that Frans' proposal was made at
    [11]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jun/
    0228.html

      [11] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jun/0228.html

    <SimonCox> +1

    <SimonCox> +1

    SimonCox: we don't need the "recommended" part

    <eparsons> There should be a way of referencing a CRS with a
    HTTP URI, and to get useful information about the CRS when that
    URI is dereferenced."

    <jtandy> +!

    <jtandy> +1

    +q

    <SimonCox> There are multiple existing sources of CRS
    definitions. Most of them are good. Do we intend to single out
    one of them as 'recommended'?

    <ThiagoAvila> Hi for all.

    MattPerry: there should be "one" way

    <MattPerry> I can live with removal of "recommended"

    <Alejandro_Llaves> Me too

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to show his ignorance

    <SimonCox> OGC does, but so do others

    <Alejandro_Llaves> +q

    jtandy: phila: doesn't OGC provide CRS URL's

    phila: should requirement also include what the URI returns?

    <Rachel> [made it after all, sorry a bit late!]

    <eparsons> Hi Rachel :-)

    Alejandro: OGC provides URI's but requirement can cover
    problems "already solved"

    <eparsons> 2)In the course of discussing CRS requirements a new
    BP requirement was introduced: Default CRS. No issues have been
    raised with regard to this requirement yet.

    <SimonCox> [12]http://epsg.io [13]http://spatialreference.org
    [14]http://www.opengis.net/def/crs/EPSG/0/ all good

      [12] http://epsg.io/
      [13] http://spatialreference.org/
      [14] http://www.opengis.net/def/crs/EPSG/0/

    MattPerry: GeoSPARQL sets a default of WGS84 as represented in
    OGC CRS84

    <Alejandro_Llaves> The req. under discussion is described here
    [15]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirement
    s.html#DefaultCRS

      [15] 
http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#DefaultCRS

    <jtandy> joshlieberman: we need to decide what that default
    would be

    <kerry> we do hav e issue-28 on this topic

    <jtandy> ... looking at usage, wgs84 is by far most common

    joshlieberman: the prevalence of CRS84 recommends the
    practicality of a default

    <kerry> +q

    <kerry> yes

    kerry: WGS84 is most common, but not applicable to some use
    cases.
    ... prefer a simple reference over a default

    <jtandy> +1

    <Rachel> +1 to Kerry

    <SimonCox> 'no default' would immediately invalidate all
    GeoJSON (which _does_ have a default in fact)

    eparsons: many user communities do not include a reference and
    a clear default might have helped with clarity

    <eparsons> 3)In the course of discussing CRS requirements a
    possible new BP requirement has come up. ISSUE-29 (Add a
    requirement for linking geometry to CRS) was raised to enable
    further discussion and/or decision-making.

    SimonCox: no clear practice. GeoSPARQL inherits WKT and GML.
    GeoJSON doesn't support geometry CRS's

    joshlieberman: geometry-level CRS anticipates multiple possible
    geometries per spatial entity

    <jtandy> "all geometries shall be associated with a CRS"

    <Alejandro_Llaves> +1

    <eparsons> +1

    <MattPerry> +1

    <SimonCox> +1

    +1

    <kerry> +1

    <IanHolt> +1

    <SimonCox> (what I meant was we need to say something about the
    predicate, as well as the CRS resource ...)

    <eparsons> 4)Whether 'a recommend way' is the best expression
    to be used in requirements is something that is discussed in
    the thread Use of the word 'standard' in the UCR document.

    <kerry> itis documented in the tracker

    <phila> RESOLVED: That at the highest level, the BP doc will
    say that "all geometries shall be associated with a CRS"

    <kerry> +

    joshlieberman: BP should strive to recommend "specification"
    that at some times will be accepted standards

    <Alejandro_Llaves> +q

    kerry: prefer "advice"

    Alejandro: do the terms need to be in the requirements?

    <kerry> +1

    kerry: term "advice" works for requirements. BP can then use
    other terms for its "advice"

    <jtandy> +1

    <MattPerry> +1

    <SimonCox> Did we finish the 'default CRS' question?

    <Alejandro_Llaves> I can do that

    jtandy: we seem to have ducked the default CRS question and not
    yet agreed whether to make it a requirement or not.

    <eparsons> Topic : Best Practices Skeleton

    <eparsons>
    [16]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Notes_for_Context#Sugg
    ested_Skeleton

      [16] 
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Notes_for_Context#Suggested_Skeleton

    phila, not remembering how to create an action. Please
    demonstrate...

    <phila> ACTION: Llaves to highlight that the default CRS issue
    is unresolved, when next editing the UCR doc [recorded in
    [17]http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-55 - Highlight that the default crs
    issue is unresolved, when next editing the ucr doc [on
    Alejandro Llaves - due 2015-07-08].

    <Alejandro_Llaves> thanks!

    jtandy: not sure that UCR content has sufficiently been
    analyzed to create an appropriate skeleton / outline.

    joshlieberman: how do you characterize the "things" to form the
    outline?

    jtandy: that should fall out of the analysis.

    joshlieberman: should we say "common practices" to cover?

    phila: there was analysis in Barcelona as far as the
    requirements extraction. Question may be "is the list of
    requirements complete?"

    joshlieberman: some examples of "dangling requirements" would
    help.

    <Alejandro_Llaves> Well, there are some reqs. waiting to be
    discussed and raised as issues.

ANOB

    joshlieberman: is it initially a process of scrubbing the
    requirements?

    <Alejandro_Llaves> That I assume will be discussed in
    forthcoming calls.

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about TPAC

    jtandy: process for providing UCR draft feedback?

    phila: there is a comments tracker tool that can be used to
    extract from email feedback (as part of WG review)

    joshlieberman: for OGC public documents (standards or other)
    the public can provide feedback either on a mailing list or
    through the Change Request mechanism. Members of the WG will
    then need to review and transfer to W3C list / tool

    phila: working document only lists the W3C list (needs to be
    corrected).

    <phila> ACTION: phila to update UCR snapshot with
    public-comments list ASAP [recorded in
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes.html#action02]

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - to update ucr snapshot with
    public-comments list asap [on Phil Archer - due 2015-07-08].

    <scribe> ACTION: ed to monitor OGC channels for feedback on the
    UCR draft once released as an OGC document [recorded in
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes.html#action03]

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-57 - Monitor ogc channels for
    feedback on the ucr draft once released as an ogc document [on
    Ed Parsons - due 2015-07-08].

    <LarsG> bye, thanks

    <Alejandro_Llaves> thanks, bye!

    <Rachel> bye

    <eparsons> bye !

    bye, thanks

    <IanHolt> bye

    <SimonCox> Regrets for next week

    <SimonCox> school holidays

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: ed to monitor OGC channels for feedback on the
    UCR draft once released as an OGC document [recorded in
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: Llaves to highlight that the default CRS issue is
    unresolved, when next editing the UCR doc [recorded in
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: phila to update UCR snapshot with public-comments
    list ASAP [recorded in
    [22]http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes.html#action02]

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes.html#action03
      [21] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes.html#action01
      [22] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/01-sdw-minutes.html#action02
Received on Wednesday, 1 July 2015 14:06:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 2 September 2016 12:03:04 UTC