- From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:26:16 +0200
- To: Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>
- Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFVDz40sMyyeK-G-A1REbYsjUcpRNnJRoFxbsb8ZNj5FBogALw@mail.gmail.com>
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