- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:06:57 +0000
- To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
The minutes of today's meeting are at
https://www.w3.org/2017/02/08-sdw-minutes with a snapshot below.
Thanks to Linda, Jeremy and those who have helped them in recent weeks,
the WG resolved to publish the next iteration of the BP doc.
The SSN sub group is invited to bring blocking issues to the whole WG
where everyone is willing to help. Note that all publications are made
in the name of the whole WG, not just any one sub group.
Snapshot below...
Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Teleconference
08 Feb 2017
[2]Agenda
[2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20170208
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2017/02/08-sdw-irc
Attendees
Present
eparsons, LarsG, phila, AndreaPerego, jtandy,
billroberts, ScottSimmons, Linda, BartvanLeeuwen, kerry,
DanhLePhuoc
Regrets
Byron, Clemens, Raphaël, Matt, Claus, ChrisLittle
Chair
eparsons
Scribe
PhilA
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Preliminaries
2. [6]Update on Coverages activities
3. [7]Update on SSN
* [8]Summary of Action Items
* [9]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribe: PhilA
<eparsons> thanks
<scribe> scribeNick: phila
<AndreaPerego> Evening, everyone.
eparsons: We can get going...
<eparsons> Topic : Approve last week's minutes
Preliminaries
<eparsons> [10]https://www.w3.org/2017/01/25-sdw-minutes
[10] https://www.w3.org/2017/01/25-sdw-minutes
-> [11]https://www.w3.org/2017/01/25-sdw-minutes Minutes from 2
weeks ago
[11] https://www.w3.org/2017/01/25-sdw-minutes
<jtandy> +1
<Linda> =1
<LarsG> +1
<Linda> +1
+1
<ScottSimmons> +0
<billroberts> 0 (wasn't there)
<DanhLePhuoc> +1
<eparsons> RESOLUTION : Approve last week's minutes
<eparsons> Topic : Patent Call
<kerry> +1
<eparsons> [12]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
[12] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Patent_Call
<eparsons> Topic : Best Practice: vote to publish Latest
Working Draft
<eparsons> [13]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/
[13] http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/
eparsons: Anything else to say, Linda, Jeremy?
<jtandy>
[14]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Feb/
0079.html
[14]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Feb/0079.html
jtandy: The e-mail..
... Lists the changes. We've done stuff on the summary (We =
Clemens)
... BP7 updated
... The section on authoritative URLs has been pushed to BP14
... BP 17 removed
... Understand that Byron has been overtaken by events
... Not a huge no.of change but we're keeping to the schedule
of regular releases.
... As BartvanLeeuwen is here - this time we have included his
work. Thank you Bart.
eparsons: Any questions and issues?
... we have some positive votes from people not here
<eparsons> PROPOSED: That the editors current draft of the SSN
doc at w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/ be published by W3C and OGC as the
next iteration
<jtandy> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<Linda> +1
<LarsG> +1
<jtandy> -1
<Linda> -1
<eparsons> +1PROPOSED: That the editors current draft of the
doc at w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/ be published by W3C and OGC as the
next iteration
<Linda> +1
<BartvanLeeuwen> +1
<jtandy> +1
<kerry> +1
<ScottSimmons> +1
<AndreaPerego> ??
<billroberts> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<DanhLePhuoc> +1
<eparsons> +1
<LarsG> +1
<eparsons> RESOLVED : That the editors current draft of the doc
at w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/ be published by W3C and OGC as the
next iteration
<AndreaPerego> \o/
<eparsons> Congratulations and Thanks to the Editors !!!
jtandy: Thanks everyone. Lots more to do and vote on in Delft.
... Next sprint is the last one with any substantive changes
... If we suggest that you help us with an item, please help
us.
billroberts: I've been too busy or having too much fun to help
but that's all over so I should be able to offer some time now.
jtandy: Remember how you've made your choices about vocabs and
splits between RDF and others - that's important
<eparsons> Kerry how is it going ?
phila: Recounted how DWBP tweeted about implementations of DWBP
- which amplified the signal nicelyr
Linda: We're interested to know how well the idea of sprints
works
jtandy: I'd say we were realistic in what we could achieve in a
sprint
... Realism was good.
... The F2F time in London was very valuable
... We'll be challenged to get so much done in this next sprint
eparsons: The F2F always helps
... And you're more focused
... Any more comments on BP?
[Nope]
Update on Coverages activities
eparsons: Thanks again to the editors
... Been a while since we discussed coverages
... So where are we, Bill?
billroberts: Coverage connoisseurs know there were 3 docs.
... QB4ST and EO-QB docs went to FPWWD in early Jan
... Both are not far off being final.
... Maybe a certain element of dependency on the BP doc
... I've not had a chance to talk to the authors of those since
I came back.
... Confident that they will reach a final version within a
suitable time frame.
... CoverageJSON we decided to delay putting into FPWD as there
is some uncertainty over whether it should be an OGC/W3C doc or
not.
... Feeling is for now it will stay on covjson.org with a CC
licence. Doc from this WG will refer to that spec.
... So there's not a huge amount to do to the doc to get it to
FPWD
... Haven't talked about imminent availability. Might be
possible to get ready for a vote in either 2 or 4 weeks.
... It's a while since we had a call. Will try and convene one
for (this time) next week.
eparsons: Comments or questions?
<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask something related to BP
jtandy: Thanks for the update. Sounds like progress...
... Off topic. I saw Lars comments about the references
disappearing
... I load in 2 browsers. It stopped loading the ReSpec stuff
<Linda> It works in my browser...
<jtandy> <script class="remove"
src="[15]http://www.w3.org/Tools/respec/respec-w3c-common"></sc
ript>
[15] http://www.w3.org/Tools/respec/respec-w3c-common
<jtandy> line 7 index.html
phila: If the address of the doc is https, so should respec be
<Zakim> kerry, you wanted to suggest eo-qb could be ready for
another vote in that timeframe
<kerry> wanted to say to billroberts
<kerry> that we could coordinate
<kerry> ...a fresh eo-qb as well
<kerry> in a few weeks
<kerry> over
<kerry> i am finished -- please dpont wait more!
<eparsons> thanks kerry all done ?
<billroberts> thanks kerry - will follow up by email but sounds
good
<Zakim> LarsG, you wanted to talk about https everywhere
LarsG: I wanted to say that my FireFox prob might be that I
have https everywhere installed.
Update on SSN
<eparsons> phila: lots of email traffic
<eparsons> phila: Not all on the same page rather heated...
<eparsons> phila : some progress but still fundamental
differences within group
<eparsons> phila: Need for 2 namespaces one such issue
<eparsons> phila: Chance of rec 50:50 only at the moment due to
time constraints
Linda: Not active in Time or SSN, but Geonovum is interested in
their progress
... Maybe we can help as a neutral observer
<eparsons> phila: issues need summarising
eparsons: Concerned that there are such fundamental issues. If
we can't address that then it's going to be a challenge
phila: Armin is trying hard to steer the group
eparsons: It's a specialised topic and if you're not into it,
it's hard to contribute
]
Linda: Yes, it's specialised, but the question over 1 or 2
namespaces is not specialist
phila: +1 to Linda
eparsons: So let's see what we can all do. We don't want people
falling out.
kerry: Lots of issues about the integration of SSN with the
core, known as SOSA
... Those are being worked through
... There's a kind of self-appointed sub group putting
solutions on the table
... Strong personalities not liking some bits and then people
fall over
... Work better with chair appointed cf. self appointed
s/string/strong/
kerry: Lots of issues in the tracker, often interrelated, but
starting to come together
... All just about ontologies, not the spec. We're due for a
new doc.
... I wouldn't write it off.
BartvanLeeuwen: At the beginning of the WG, we sped things up
by creating sub groups.
... It sounds as if we have an obligation to bring this into
the main WG again if things are not going as well as it could
<Zakim> kerry, you wanted to speak on barts commnets
kerry: That has been suggested, mostly by me. It's not well
received
... The times of the meeting are bad
... And it's a bit of a specialist topic
... I have no objection, but it may not work for other people
phila: Repeats Linda's offer of help
kerry: Personally I'd like that
... How do we do it?
<DanhLePhuoc> +q
eparsons: I suggest you identify the issues you're struggling
with
... send to the whole group and ask for help.
<jtandy> +1 to @eparsons' proposal
kerry: I'll talk to Armin
<Linda> +1 to eparsons
BartvanLeeuwen: We don't like to have non-SSN people commenting
sounds like mutiny. The specs - the WG - bears all our names.
DanhLePhuoc: I'll add that the way... I had to step back... not
everyone's respecting Armin's role, which is a pity.
... So I'm all for resolutions in the plenary.
... What I see in several meetings - the chair can't always get
through the agenda
... People jumping in all the time
... I hope that will help move things forward.
eparsons: I know it might be a hassle to others, we could think
about moving the plenary to a different time
<Linda> BartvanLeeuwen has a point - SSN is a product of this
WG so we're all in a way responsible
DanhLePhuoc: It doesn't have to be a lot of effort to bring
things to the plenary
<DanhLePhuoc> +1 to Phil
kerry: We've had push back on the whole WG taking a role in the
SSN work
phila: It's not optional - the whole WG is responsible
PROPOSED: That the SSN Sub Group bring blocking issues to the
plenary where the whole WG will do their best to help.
Remembering that all publications are made in the whole WG's
name.
jtandy: If there has been a discussion in the SSN, part of
what's needed for the WG to help, is that a summary needs to be
made of the opposing views.
... So that the whole WG can take a view on the specifics
eparsons: Is the proposal OK to everyone?
<Linda> +1
<BartvanLeeuwen> ++1
<kerry> +1
<eparsons> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<LarsG> +1
<billroberts> +1
<ScottSimmons> +1
[NOTUC]
<DanhLePhuoc> +1
<jtandy> [specific issues = blocking issues]
<jtandy> +1
<eparsons> Topic : Upcoming F2F in Delft agenda bashing
RESOLUTION: That the SSN Sub Group bring blocking issues to the
plenary where the whole WG will do their best to help.
Remembering that all publications are made in the whole WG's
name.
eparsons: much discussion around the timetable of this.
... The info suggests that it should be Monday and Tuesday
<eparsons>
[16]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Attending_F2F6
[16] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Attending_F2F6
eparsons: It would be helpful if everyone can update the wiki
table
... Then Greg (OGC) can handle registrations.
... The Monday will focus on BP, as Jeremy can't be there
Tuesday.
<Zakim> jtandy, you wanted to ask if I need to register for the
OGC TC?
eparsons: Registration will be done for just the SDW meeting,
you don't need to register for the overall OGC event.
jtandy: That saves me doing stuff
eparsons: We can work out how to use our time
Linda: So do we miss the opening plenary?
... I'm due to speak for 3 minutes
billroberts: What's the OGC event?
eparsons: The Technical Committee meeting
billroberts: I have something else on that Monday
... But can be there Tuesday.
<BartvanLeeuwen> thx guys
<jtandy> bye
<AndreaPerego> Thanks, and bye!
<LarsG> Bye
<billroberts> bye!
<eparsons> bye thanks phila
<kerry> bye!
phila: Can't be there Monday morning but may *fly* on that
afternoon to get there ASAP.
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
1. [17]That the SSN Sub Group bring blocking issues to the
plenary where the whole WG will do their best to help.
Remembering that all publications are made in the whole
WG's name.
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2017 21:07:16 UTC