- From: Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 07:12:37 +0000
- To: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>
- Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAHrFjcmheZf0ZxqKQRG-XRUS8k2SLiFioPfiq+qC74rZwxkmLA@mail.gmail.com>
HI Frans - I hope I can *clarify*... On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 at 14:25 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote: > 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? > *It was my understanding that the revised phrasing was accepted with the removal of the term "recommended"* > > 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. > *I agree, this is not a requirement.* > > 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? > *I agree this is a new separate issue that needs more discussions perhaps.* > > 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. > *Easy - Use the term advice rather than the specific terms "standard" or "recommended way" - this allows the BP document to use what is appropriate to fulfil each requirement.* > > > 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> > > -- *Ed Parsons* Geospatial Technologist, Google Mobile +44 (0)7825 382263 www.edparsons.com @edparsons
Received on Friday, 10 July 2015 07:13:17 UTC