See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 12 May 2011
<andy> i am not 25
<andy> different and new andy?
<andy> ok
<matt> scribe: ahill2
<matt> previous minutes
matt: I added 30 issues to push forward the first working draft
<matt> tracker
<robman> thanks...i've had a good look around 8)
matt: I've made some changes to the working draft, related to four actions, that are necessary before publishing
matt: welcome to Rob Manson, new Invited Expert
<matt> Newest draft
Matt: The previous core draft has
been changed to a listing of the core drafts
... I added numerous definitiions, removed the map
georeference, dropped the XML syntax for address, introduced
the object primitive (not mapped to XML), and tried to link
things up to their issue
... prettied up the XML table, borke out POI and POI elements,
made note about uncertaintly of container objects
... added change in section 4.4 reference the WGS84 coordinate
system
... made a comment about "points" (i.e. do we want to put
latitude and lognitude by order or specific elements
... the atom category element only allowed for one, but I tried
to address this
... incorporated a lot of comments from Leigh into the XML
examples
... appendix A includes the sue cases from the Wiki
use
matt: trying to use a tool that generates links to existing standards - once completed this will remove the red error boxes
carl: in the future when I submit comments, how should I go about it?
mattt: create a new thread on the public poi mailing list for each issue (i.e "here are our thoughts on time primitive")
matt: is would be nice is you can find a related issue and add something like "ISSUE-/14" in the subject line
it would be
matt: I just found the EPG information in the sidebar, I may have to tweak the document before publishing today
<matt> blog on editor's draft
matt: again, this is just the
first public working draft and the bar is relatively low - see
link
... pushing out the editors draft already has generated a lot
of feedback. so we can expect this publication to build
momentum and bring in other voices
... I wasn't able to get the object primitive that Christine
pushed into the document; and understand from her this might
alienate some from the AR crowd
<andy> +1 to moving foward
<robman> +1
+1
<fons> +1
<matt> RESOLUTION: WG will publish FPWD today
<andy> sticking on mute with phone issue for now
matt: we have resolved to publish the FPWD today
<andy> lets do that
matt: ok, going with open issues
<matt> Raised Issues
matt: issues are first raised, then they can be opened, then a pending review, otherwised postponed
<andy> +1
matt: I suggest we just use raised and closed, please ignore other stateds
states
<matt> issue-19?
<trackbot> ISSUE-19 -- How should we represent points? -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/19
<matt> issue-20?
<trackbot> ISSUE-20 -- How should we represent lines? -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/20
does anyone on the call have an issue they want to discuss?
<matt> issue-21?
<trackbot> ISSUE-21 -- How should we specify the coordinate system used? -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/21
matt: these issues relate to how to represent points and polygons
<matt> For example: <gml:Point><gml:pos>42.360890561289295 -71.09139204025269</gml:pos></gml:Point>
<matt> <point latitude="42.360890561289295" longitude="-71.09139204025269"/>
don't these "paths" tend to be separate formats than a single point?
<matt> ISO19907
carl: the GML is grounded in
ISO19907
... GML also uses the same base as geojson
... the order of latitude and longitude depends on the
coordinate system being used
<robman> +1 to linking geo param ordering on crs
<matt> ISSUE-22?
<trackbot> ISSUE-22 -- How should we represent polygons? -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/22
carl: in China, legally you canot
use WGS84, but their government system happens to be
similar
... for polygon geometry, Raj submitted the GML encoding
because it is consistent with ISO19907
<matt> ACTION: Carl to look at ISSUE-22 ISSUE-20 ISSUE-21 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-76 - Look at ISSUE-22 ISSUE-20 ISSUE-21 [on Carl Reed - due 2011-05-19].
certainly have no investment in re-inventing this wheel
matt: while we don't want to reinvent, we do have some responsibility to making this consumable and usable by the average web developer
<robman> carl - does GML handle relative points or just crs defined geolocations?
matt: simple things simple, hard things possible
<andy> +1
carl would you repeat the standard you mentioned is getting used by developers?
carl: in the current implementation, developers could change the default coordinate system, but the default remains WGS84
<andy> +1
<andy> to only use international standards
carl: we got some suggestions for using X and Y, but since there wasn't any international standard we had to reject that
rob; doe GML support relative objects?
carl: yes, relative and moving objects
can we get a link to an example of this?
<matt> ISSUE-27?
<trackbot> ISSUE-27 -- What issues arise from using namespaces in the XML serialization? -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/27
<robman> serialisation
matt: there was some concern
about using external namespaces because it doesn't map into
JSON
... obviously there is a broader concern about breaking some
use cases like JSON, etc.
<andy> assign me some thing
<matt> ACTION: manson to work on ISSUE-27 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-77 - Work on ISSUE-27 [on Rob Manson - due 2011-05-19].
matt: if you raised an issue and I created it, doesn't mean I was trying to take the credit (or blame)
<matt> ISSUE-32?
<trackbot> ISSUE-32 -- Does map georeference side definition need additional info? -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/32
<matt> ACTION: karl to address ISSUE-32 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.html#action03]
matt: anyone want to take this issue on?
<trackbot> Created ACTION-78 - Address ISSUE-32 [on Karl Seiler - due 2011-05-19].
<matt> ISSUE-37?
<matt> ISSUE-37?
<trackbot> ISSUE-37 -- Should we use geo URIs? -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/37
matt: don't think we understand geo uri's are
<trackbot> ISSUE-37 -- Should we use geo URIs? -- raised
<matt> GeoURIs RFC
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/37
<andy> ok
<andy> sure
<matt> ACTION: Andy to review RFC 5870 for ISSUE-37 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-79 - Review RFC 5870 for ISSUE-37 [on Andrew Braun - due 2011-05-19].
matt: the document is unfriendly and it suggests an alternate way to reference latitude and longitude
the RTF document
<matt> ISSUE-41?
<trackbot> ISSUE-41 -- Which language codes should we use? -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/41
matt: agenda item language
codes
... I wasn't comfortable bringing a lot of XML specific things
up into the data model
... the the ISO Mark III language specs has much to do with
transactions systems
<matt> ACTION: matt to look at ISSUE-41 and report back on which we should use: xml:lang and ISO MARC Alpha 3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-80 - Look at ISSUE-41 and report back on which we should use: xml:lang and ISO MARC Alpha 3 [on Matt Womer - due 2011-05-19].
+q
<robman> yes pls
<robman> 8)
matt: let's talk a little bit
about actions and issues
... actions are specific goals (i.e. do xy and z)
... issues are broader and you can break an issue up into a
number of actions
... the mechanics are that we have this web-based tracker
... it looks for content like "ACTION-\14" and inserts links
into the mailing list and irc when possible
I'm escaping to avoid confusion
<robman> is there any specific deliverable format for actions? or at least types
alex: do we need a conference call to "resolve" and issue?
matt: some other groups use extra
fields in the issues to handle contentious issues
... we can trust individuals to close their own action
items
<robman> cool
<robman> what you said was good
matt: people should send a mail to the group saying " hey I've completed this action #"
last longer when you are scribing
matt: we are having trouble
getting Budapest meeting space with the OMA meeting
... Andy is leaning towards the Denver OGS meeting in
September
+q
when is OMA?
<matt> poll results
<robman> sorry but i have to leave - talk to you all next time and see some of you at ARE
<robman> works for me...bye
<matt> [[Budapest, Hungary, before, during, or after OMA's member meeting June 27-July 1]]
<matt> ahill2: We need to resolve this soon.
<matt> ACTION: Andy to resolve whether we are going to Budapest or not [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-81 - Resolve whether we are going to Budapest or not [on Andrew Braun - due 2011-05-19].
<fons> I will not attend next weeks telco, being on a return trip from Bilbao
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: ahill2 Inferring ScribeNick: ahill2 Default Present: Matt, +31.20.592.aaaa, fons, ahill2, Carl_Reed, robman, +1.919.599.aabb, Andy Present: Matt +31.20.592.aaaa fons ahill2 Carl_Reed robman +1.919.599.aabb Andy Regrets: Cperey Jens Ronald Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-poiwg/2011May/0041.html Found Date: 12 May 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-poiwg-minutes.html People with action items: andy carl karl manson matt WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]