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

[Minutes] 2015-06-03

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 15:07:13 +0100
Message-ID: <556F0A11.4030207@w3.org>
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
The minutes of today's meeting are at 

A text summary is copied below.

Main issues discussed today:
- resolution to publish the UCR as an FPWD, subject to Frans and 
Alejandro adding in links to issues in the tracker.

- Simon and Ed to discuss how to handle publication from OGC 
perspective. Expectation is that we'll synchronise publication by both 
SDOs after the 3 week period that is part of the OGC process - but note 
that OGC does not have a direct equivalent of W3C's FPWD.

- Formal and informal thanks expressed to Frans and Alejandro.

- If you like being the recipient of much thanks and praise, please 
consider volunteering as an editor of the BP document to which attention 
will turn starting next week.

           Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference

03 Jun 2015


       [2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150603

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2015/06/03-sdw-irc


           kerry, Rachel, aharth, Alejandro_Llaves, billrobets,
           billroberts, PhilA, LarsG, MattPerry, eparsons,
           ChrisLittle, SImonCox, jtandy, Linda, Frans, IanHolt

           Antoine_Zimmermann, Andrea, Philippe_Thiran,
           Clemens_Portele, Josh, Lieberman phillipe




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Status of the UCR
                o [6]FPWD resolution
          2. [7]OGC Publication Process Synchronising
          3. [8]Next Steps - the Best Practice Document
      * [9]Summary of Action Items

    <trackbot> Date: 03 June 2015

    <eparsons> trackbot, start meeting

    <trackbot> Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group

    <trackbot> Date: 03 June 2015

    Meeting URL is at


    <Frans> Still working on audio...

    <IanHolt> Trying to fix audio this end

    <SimonCox> pathetic

    <SimonCox> 4th floor

    <scribe> scribe: phila

    <scribe> scribeNick: phila

    <SimonCox> I recall in the 1970s the Met Office tried to come
    up with a catchy little ditty to explain Celsius.

    <SimonCox> 5, 10 and 21 - Winter Spring and Summer Sun (!)

    ed: Recalls last week's minutes

    eparsons: recalls the OGC Patent Call



    PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes, such as they are, see


    <jtandy> +1

    <ChrisLittle> and even I was not at Met Office

    <eparsons> +1

    <kerry> +1

    <billroberts> +1


    <Linda> +1

    <MattPerry> +1

    <ChrisLittle> +1 minutes

    RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes, such as they are, see


Status of the UCR

    eparsons: Main order of business today is progress with UCR.
    Next step is to make it a First Public Working Draft

    s.html Editor's draft

      [14] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html

    eparsons: It's a formal step. You need to be happy with the doc
    as it stands. It's not final of course
    ... we're saying to the world, here it is, come and take a look
    and see how we're doing, how we're thinking

    <ChrisLittle> +2 to Alejandro, Frans

    <Alejandro_Llaves> Thanks! :)

    <Linda> Yes very nice work Frans and Alejandro!

    phila: Gives a bit more background

    eparsons: Asks for any further points?

    billroberts: Thanks Frans and Alejandro
    ... I see an e-mail question Frans raised about spatial
    relations etc.
    ... Frans had suggested a modified form of that requirement
    ... I just wanted to know what the status of the editing
    process is
    ... are there still things to be done or is the doc as it is
    the version we're going to publish?

    eparsons: good point. It's not saying it's complete and that
    there are no ongoing issues. It's "we're mostly happy for it to
    be discussed in public"

    Frans: This is an example of one of the many issues to be
    ... the UCR has a broad scope. There are many differnet
    subjects and issues that need to be processed
    ... some subjects hairly, some simple
    ... but they haven't all be processed yet
    ... what i want to achieve is that we don't overlook anythiung
    that still needs to be processed
    ... Alejandro_Llaves wanted to flag the remaining issues and
    associate them in the UCR
    ... if there is time for that, that's a final thing we could do
    before it reached FPWD status

    <Alejandro_Llaves> +q

    Frans: at least have some kind of completeness - the idea that
    we have eveything in our sights.
    ... For some of our reqs we haven't found the optimal phrasing

    jtandy: Before we move to FPWD, I think we should definitely
    reference the issues in our tracker
    ... It says "we know there's still some stuff outdstanding
    ... so people don't ask us why we're not thinkinbg about
    something that we are

    <Linda> +1 to referencing issues

    eparsons: So what concrete steps do we need to take?

    <jtandy> [15]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues

      [15] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues

    jtandy: If we look at the issue sin the tracker, we need to add
    a para using the issues CSS class, to link to that
    ... I have a link that describes how to do that

    eparsons: So this is a further steo for the editos do to over
    the coming days

    <jtandy> see discussion in email thread


    Frans: I agree with that course of action
    ... If we are meant to vote on the doc, do we still have time
    to put those issues in?

    phila: Yes

    <Rachel> +1 to referencing issues within the UCR document

    <kerry> +1 to caveat as discussed

    Frans: That's nice, thanks
    ... It's easier for WG members to check if their issue in in
    the tracker than if it is in the doc correctly

    eparsons: We might have an opportunity to do this as we may
    want to sync OGC and W3C publishing - which takes 3 weeks+ -
    next agendum!

    Alejandro_Llaves: I wanted to say that Jeremy's suggestion is
    good. He gave example of how this has been done elsewhere. We
    committed to having the issues integrated in the doc
    ... But we need to recognise the massive number of e-mails in
    the last few weeks
    ... So we'll work on the cross linking
    ... I'm fine with voting today, accounting for still adding the
    ... but I would ask not to add new issues until we've done that
    ... or there will never be an FPWD

    eparsons: That seems fair

    <Zakim> kerry, you wanted to speak on what about new issues
    from here on?

    eparsons: Assuming we don't vote today, no new issues until
    tracker items have been integrated.

    kerry: My comments was closely related.
    ... What do we do about issues still in people's heads but not
    in the tracker?
    ... I guess the answer is, keep them in your head and hold off
    for now
    ... maybe we should announce the issue(s) we're going to work
    on for each meeting

    Linda: What about issues that were raised by e-mail but that
    are not yet in the tracker?

    Frans: We'll put them in the tracker
    ... and link from the UCR
    ... so that we can check for completeness.

    Linda: So are you going to do that or should I do that for my

    Frans: Dunno if Alejandro_Llaves agrees, but the editors can
    make a start

    <Alejandro_Llaves> +q

    Frans: The editors should have a good overview of outstanding

    Alejandro_Llaves: I'm fine with that as a first procedure for
    ... But in future, as all Wg memebrs have access to the
    tracker, and we have explained how to use it, I think it would
    be easier for that individual to describe their issues in the
    ... Otherwise we end up exhanging e-mails and they're not

    phila: Takes an action to check the tracker config to start
    e-mails being sent when new issues are raised.

    eparsons: So let's think in terms of a moritorium on issues
    betwene now and FPWD

    <eparsons> PROPOSED : Move the UCR document to First Public
    Working Draft

    eparsons: Any more issues?

    Frans: Thinking about what's next... the fact that the UCR
    isn't finished, shouldn't stop the next thing being worked on

    eparsons: No

    PROPOSED: Move the UCR document to First Public Working Draft,
    subject to issues in tracker being linked

    <jtandy> +1 subject to caveat that ISSUES in the tracker are
    represented in the UCR doc prior to its FPWD publication ...
    UCR doc is _good enough_ for FPWD

    <eparsons> +1

    <Linda> +1

    <kerry> +1

    <Rachel> +1


    <MattPerry> +1

    <Frans> +1

    <billroberts> +1

    <stlemme> +1

    <SimonCox> +1

    <ChrisLittle> +1

    RESOLUTION: Move the UCR document to First Public Working
    Draft, subject to issues in tracker being linked

    <LarsG> +1

    <cperey> +1

    <ahaller2> +1

    <IanHolt> +1

    <SimonCox> (and actual publication subject to OGC mechanics

    <Alejandro_Llaves> +1

    <kerry> +q

    eparsons: Thanks to everyone, especially the editors

    kerry: I was thought it might be time to propose a formal vote
    of thanks to our editors

    <ChrisLittle> +1

    <jtandy> +1

    <SimonCox> sound of hands clapping

    PROPOSED: Thanks to Frans and Alejandro

    <eparsons> +1

    <LarsG> +1

    <kerry> +1

    <Rachel> +1

    <stlemme> +1

    <IanHolt> +1

    <billroberts> +1

    <ahaller2> +1

    <MattPerry> +1 Thanks to Frans and Alejandro

    <Linda> +1


    RESOLUTION: Thanks to Frans and Alejandro

OGC Publication Process Synchronising

    eparsons: How do we take this forward in OGC.
    ... There is not complete overlap between the two SDOs
    ... there is no equivalent in OGC to a W3C FPWD

    <SimonCox> Or 'Discussion Paper'

    eparsons: I think an Engineering Report is the closest thing
    OGC has

    <jtandy> thinks that this is not an engineering report- there's
    no engineering!

    eparsons: The chairs put it in a pending folder and asks for a
    vote that lasts >= 3 weeks
    ... If no objection, it moves to published

    <SimonCox> DP = early technology

    eparsons: maybe discussion paper is better, but this is quite a
    tech document

    <SimonCox> Eng Report = result of testbed

    <Frans> A white paper?

    eparsons: We'll talk with OGC colleagues here in Boulder to
    decide but is that 3 week window OK for everyone?

    <SimonCox> Neither is a formal 'OGC position' - essentially

    jtandy: It's important that people in OGC world know that this
    is in no way finished
    ... Typically, the 3 week process at OGC means the doc is
    ... We need to convey that it's open to change

    <Linda> Agrees with Simon - sounds most like a discussion paper

    <Zakim> phila, you wanted to ask about syncing or not

    eparsons: The alternative is not to publish at OGC until it's

    SimonCox: The status of Eng Rep or Discussion, are both FYI,
    not an endorsed product, That's well understood within the OGC
    ... They're choosing to publish because they think it's of
    interest to the community but no more.

    eparsons: So what's your suggestion?

    SimonCox: I'm not sure that the process outlined is entirely
    ... In the case of docs that are not formal positions of OGC,
    it can be informal, maybe just a show of hands at a TC plenary.
    ... We could perhaps have had that if the doc had been
    available 3 weeks ago.
    ... but it'll be a bit more cumbersome.

    eparsons: My suggestion was that the GeoSemantics DWG could
    organise the vote?

    SimonCox: I'll look into the details of that. We may need a
    formal resolution of that group this week.

    <kerry> +q

    SimonCox: The OGC approach in general is that no doc goes
    forward if it hasn't been available to the relevant part of the
    OGC community for at least 3 weeks

    <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask if the introduction section
    of the OGC doc can include a statement about FPWD?

    SimonCox: I'll help check the details today.

    jtandy: I wanted to suggest... I'm happy with a discussion doc
    going through the 3 week rule. Maybe we can include a cover
    sheet on that to explain what an FPWD is

    eparsons: Yes, we should.

    SimonCox: Isn't that form of words included in the doc?

    jtandy: Yes, but it will be unfamiliar to OGC folks so a bit
    more explanation of how to get involved etc. might be useful.

    kerry: Just a tech question... you mentioned having a vote in
    the geoSemantics - haven't we effectively just done that?

    SimonCox: This is a sub group, not the full group. I'd be
    reluctant to take that short cut.

    eparsons: We've doubled the democratic process, not halved it,
    but doing things together.

    <Alejandro_Llaves> +q

    <scribe> ACTION: eparsons to talk to other memebers of the OGC
    GeoSemantics DWG about this and try and take this forward as
    rapidly as possible. [recorded in

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2015/06/03-sdw-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-49 - Talk to other members of the ogc
    geosemantics dwg about this and try and take this forward as
    rapidly as possible. [on Ed Parsons - due 2015-06-10].

    <jtandy> +1

    eparsons: That means we don't go gthrough the W3C process until
    we've been through the OGC process?

    <kerry> +1

    <Alejandro_Llaves> +1

    <Linda> +1

    General Agreement

    <Rachel> +1

    <IanHolt> +1

    <ChrisLittle> +1


      [18] http://docs.opengeospatial.org/pol/05-020r20/05-020r20.html#24

    Alejandro_Llaves: Do we have a template to add to the document?

    (Simon points to it)

    jtandy: Presumably the OGC publication is a PDF doc, not a Web

    SimonCox: All new docs at OGC are now published as HTML pages

    jtandy: So can we take our HTML doc and push it into the OGC

    <Frans> There already is a (standard) paragraph ¨Status of This

    SimonCox: I don't think that's appropriate, we can leave it as
    it is.

    eparsons: So maybe we just add a paragraph to the document

    <SimonCox> From OGC P&P:"The votes that may occur at a DWG are:
    Move to release an Engineering Report as a Discussion Paper"

    <SimonCox> "All of these motions and DWG are recommendations to
    the full TC."

    phila: Can we predict a date (Tues or Thurs) for publication?

    SimonCox: We may know by the end of the day
    ... I've been looking at the OGC policies. And I think it means
    that the 3 week rule applies if no one objects?
    ... Ed and I will talk to Scott today

    <scribe> ACTION: Simon to work with Ed to come up with the
    wording to describe to the OGC community what FPWD means
    [recorded in

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2015/06/03-sdw-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-50 - Work with ed to come up with the
    wording to describe to the ogc community what fpwd means [on
    Simon Cox - due 2015-06-10].

    <ChrisLittle> bye, sorry - have to go to another OGC WG,
    requiring spatial transfer

    eparsons: Let's close this off then...

Next Steps - the Best Practice Document

    eparsons: The BP doc is going to be the biggest thing we focus
    on for the remaindxer of the year
    ... We want to look at current activities as being the
    best/easiest way to make spatial data available on the Web in a
    form that is Linked/Linkable

    <Alejandro_Llaves> + 1

    eparsons: We are still looking for editors.
    ... The UCR describes the problem space and the BP doc is a
    large part of the solution.
    ... We are looking for editors. Speak now or contact me, Phil
    or Kerry

    Frans: I'm trying to look - I think we had a partial volunteer.
    Someone who said they'd look at an overview of current
    software. It's somehwre in an e-mail

    <kerry> +q

    eparsons: Please think about that and volunteer if you can. Or
    we'll start knocking on your door.

    kerry: I wanted to point to issue-6


    <trackbot> issue-6 -- That our primary goal is to develop 5
    star linked spatial data -- raised

    <trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/6

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/6

    kerry: I think this raises an important point. It was raised as
    a principles doscussion. Can we discuss it now or soon?

    <jtandy> +1

    kerry: I would vote in favour, but I'm not sure that everyone

    <jtandy> (we will need to bottom this out ... )

    eparsons: I agree that, yes, we need to discuss that and see
    what the BP doc is going to achieve, how to frame it etc.

    kerry: I think that's a particularly critical one.

    Frans: I'm looking at the charter now. It says the WG will
    promote LD using the 5 star paradigm, but will not exclude
    other methods.

    eparsons: Let's park that for today but it could be on next
    week's agenda.

    <Alejandro_Llaves> +q

    eparsons: Any final questions or are we done?

    <Rachel> [the email was from Lewis McGibbney, he offered to
    lead/co-lead a review and understanding of existing spatial
    markup vocabularies.]

    Alejandro_Llaves: We editors have the task of adding the issues
    ot the doc in the next days. There are some issues related
    directkly to requirements, others are not.

    <kerry> leave them out!

    What about issues that are not related like the one Kerry

    <Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to say thanks to Frans &

    eparsons: Leave them out.

    jtandy: I just wanted to thank Frans and Alejandro

    <cperey> excellent work everyone!

    <cperey> thank you!

    eparsons: Wraps up the meeting.
    ... Next week we start movng forward on the BP doc

    <Alejandro_Llaves> thanks to all! Bye

    <Linda> thanks bu

    <eparsons> bye

    <MattPerry> bye

    <Rachel> bye, thank all

    <Linda> bye!

    <billroberts> bye, thanks

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: eparsons to talk to other memebers of the OGC
    GeoSemantics DWG about this and try and take this forward as
    rapidly as possible. [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Simon to work with Ed to come up with the wording
    to describe to the OGC community what FPWD means [recorded in

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2015/06/03-sdw-minutes.html#action01
      [22] http://www.w3.org/2015/06/03-sdw-minutes.html#action02
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2015 14:07:02 UTC

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