Re: JWOC - input sought

Thanks very much for this Phil

1. Yes
2. Monthly - but probably with sub-group calls/meetings in between as we
have done in SDWWG.
3. I'll engage with other potential participants of a 'Stats BP' activity
to gather ideas and support, and report back.

Best regards

Bill

On 10 May 2017 at 14:18, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> As those who were able to take part in the Delft meeting will recall [1],
> we discussed the possible establishment of 'the JWOC' - the Joint W3C/OGC
> Organizing Committee. This would be an OGC DWG (or task force of the
> Geosemantics DWG) and in W3C, an Interest Group. These are good matches
> since, in both organisations, the groups can do everything except create
> formal standards (that's a Standards WG in OGC or a Working Group in W3C).
>
> There was strong consensus that any such follow on group should not be
> allowed to become a talking shop that meets twice and year, has a nice
> lunch and says see you next time. It needs a time-limited charter and a set
> of deliverables.
>
> To that end, I have made a *very* rough beginning at [2]. The key thing
> will be the deliverables. My understanding is that:
>
> 1. EO-QB and QB4ST are likely to need further development in the light of
> experience, so that updated versions are listed directly in the draft
> charter.
>
> 2. As discussed on today's coverages call, Coverage JSON needs more work
> and *may* be ready for standardisation during the course of the JWOC.
> Therefore, its development is listed in the charter. The thinking here is
> that CoverageJSON would be taken forward as a joint Note and then, if
> demand were sufficient, we would look at chartering a full WG/SWG. In
> W3C-land, IGs often develop charters for WGs.
>
> 3. As he did in Delft, Bill has suggested the development on a BP doc
> around statistical data on the Web. That would be an entirely new
> deliverable.
>
> 4. SDW-BP and SSN *may* need updating but it's equally possible that they
> won't so they are mentioned in the charter but not as a definite
> deliverable.
>
> 5. The draft charter has sufficient wiggle room to allow the development
> of other (related) vocabularies if so needed.
>
> The JWOC would operate much as the current SDW does, with the same
> membership rules and open-working practices.
>
> My questions:
>
> 1. Would you participate?
>
> 2. If yes, what frequency of meeting would you expect? Weekly? Bi-weekly?
> Monthly?
>
> 3. Do you think the deliverable list is correct? If not, what needs
> changing?
>
> Thanks
>
> Phil
>
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2017/03/21-sdw-minutes#x16
> [2] https://w3c.github.io/sdw/jwoc/
> --
>
>
> Phil Archer
> Data Strategist, W3C
> http://www.w3.org/
>
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
>
>