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: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:26:16 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFVDz40sMyyeK-G-A1REbYsjUcpRNnJRoFxbsb8ZNj5FBogALw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>
Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
2015-07-20 16:32 GMT+02:00 Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>:

> Hi,
>
> I think this was discussed in the telco two weeks ago and it was agreed to
> go for "advice".
>
It was not clear to me that such a consensus decision was made. In that
case, shall I go through the UCR document and replace all occurrences of
phrases like 'there should be a standard for..' to 'advice is needed on...'
?

Regards,
Frans

> Best,
> Alejandro
> Hello Alejandro,
>
> Thank you for the clarification. I have now closed ISSUE-10
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/10> and made the change in
> the UCR document.
>
> About the  'Use of the word 'standard' in the UCR document
> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jun/0211.html>' dicussion:
> In the thread I see there was some support for 'recommended way'. Do you
> think 'advice' is preferable? My fear is that 'advice' could turn out to be
> something vague and not readily applicable as a single best approach. That
> said, I think I can live with 'advice'.
>
> Regards,
> Frans
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2015-07-10 9:12 GMT+02:00 Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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>
>
>


-- 
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 Monday, 20 July 2015 15:26:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:17 UTC