- From: <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 03:20:02 +0000
- To: <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, <allaves@fi.upm.es>
- CC: <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <2A7346E8D9F62D4CA8D78387173A054A6028DCA4@exmbx04-cdc.nexus.csiro.au>
‘Best practice’ or ‘Recommendation’ is what we are talking about.
Avoiding that language is letting the tail (our combined OGC and W3C background) wag the dog (effective communication).
Simon (curmudgeon).
From: Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
Sent: Monday, 20 July 2015 11:14 PM
To: Alejandro Llaves
Cc: SDW WG Public List
Subject: Re: [Minutes] 2017-07-01
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<mailto:eparsons@google.com>>:
HI Frans - I hope I can clarify...
On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 at 14:25 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:%2B31%20%280%2920%20-%205711%20347>
E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl<mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
www.geodan.nl<http://www.geodan.nl>
disclaimer<http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>
--
Ed Parsons
Geospatial Technologist, Google
Mobile +44 (0)7825 382263<tel:%2B44%20%280%297825%20382263>
www.edparsons.com<http://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<mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
www.geodan.nl<http://www.geodan.nl>
disclaimer<http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>
Received on Tuesday, 21 July 2015 03:20:57 UTC