Re: SSN Primer added & first F2F date (was Re: JWOC - input sought)

Hello Phil,

I think a key issue will be the balance of activities that are "semantic"
perhaps most at home within the existing Geosemantics DWG and those which
cover the broader topics coverage / BP related which would be the focus of
the new JWOC ? We don't want to duplicate efforts neither do we want to
hijack existing OGC activities.

I agree with the monthly telecom tempo...

Ed

On Wed, 10 May 2017 at 16:01 Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:

> Thanks to everyone who has commented so far. I have added the SSN Primer
> to the deliverables list.
>
> Also, I've been reminded that the September TC will be in Southampton -
> which could be a good place for the JWOC to have its first F2F. The
> second could then be at TPAC in November, but let's get the thing set up
> first.
>
> Phil
>
> On 10/05/2017 14:18, Phil Archer 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 <07887%20767755>
> @philarcher1
>
> --


*Ed Parsons *FRGS
Geospatial Technologist, Google

+44 7825 382263 @edparsons
www.edparsons.com