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

Re: [Minutes] 2017-07-01

From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 14:24:42 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFVDz40swAZ4-8JR-=hAsdUJS-GgUVv2-ZqbMKi8zM8Ym+hXHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>
Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Hello Alejandro,

The meeting at 2015-07-01 was used to discuss some UCR issues. I was not
present at the meeting and now I am trying to make sense of the minutes. I
am especially looking for decisions that should lead to changes in the UCR
document. I hope you can help on the following points:


1) First there was the issue of the CRS definition requirement. A proposal
was to rephrase it to "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.". As far as I can tell, this phrasing did not make it
to a proposal that could be voted on at the meeting. I think this means
that ISSUE-10 <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/10> will have to
be discussed again at a next meeting. Can we do anything to help the group
to make a decision?

2) An issue was raised regarding the default CRS requirement
<http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#DefaultCRS>:
ISSUE-28 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/28>. I have just
created a new list thread to discuss this issue. Personally I don't
understand the problem yet, but I did see some evidence of mixing the
requirement (a default CRS) with possibilities of meeting the requirement.
I think the UCR document should be strictly about specifying what is
needed, without looking at possible ways of making that happen.

3) Then there is ISSUE-29 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/29>:
should we add a requirement for being able to relate geometry to CRS? It
looks that something has been decided on this issue, but it is not clear to
me what that is. The proposal was "There should be a recommended way of
linking a CRS to a vector geometry". Was that ever considered? An
alternative phrasing I see is "all geometries shall be associated with a CRS",
but I don't see how that can be a requirement. Perhaps it is best to create
a separate e-mail thread for issue 29 too?

4) For the discussion in the 'Use of the word 'standard' in the UCR document
<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jun/0211.html>'
thread a new option has been suggested: "advice". I wonder how we can bring
this discussion to an end. I propose we raise an issue about this subject
in the tracker so that we can put making a group decision in the agenda for
a next meeting.


Greetings,
Frans






2015-07-01 16:06 GMT+02:00 Phil Archer <phila@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
>
>


-- 
Frans Knibbe
Geodan
President Kennedylaan 1
1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)

T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
www.geodan.nl
disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2015 12:25:16 UTC

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