Re: JWOC charter

Hi Kerry

Regarding the statistical data best practices strand of the JWOC charter,
the motivation for that came from discussions in SDW about use cases
centred on statistical data referred to geographical locations.  I expect
that many aspects of the best practices might turn out to be applicable
more broadly than 'stats about places' but the spatial use cases are likely
to be important.

This seems quite similar to the relationship of the SSN or Time work to the
SDW group: both the SSN and Time work are relevant and applicable to
situations with no significant spatial component, but they are important
for many spatial data applications.

My view is that it we should leave the name of the group unchanged and
continue to keep it focused on data issues with a spatial component -
looking at statistical data will address some important and common ways of
characterising and comparing different places.

Best regards

Bill

On 22 September 2017 at 08:41, Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au> wrote:

> https://w3c.github.io/sdw/jwoc/
>
>
>
> Some comments on the proposed charter from me. I have not managed to catch
> up on all the discussion leading up to this, so please forgive me if I am
> raising old questions.
>
>
>
> 0. Good work. It looks exciting!
>
>
>
> 1. It seems odd to me that SSN has been left off section 2.1 . I note that
> for OWL-Time we have “This is a joint W3C Recommendation/OGC Standard for
> which the JWOC will handle any errata arising but for which no further work
> is envisaged.”
>
>
>
> Surely it makes sense to mirror the same for SSN (notwithstanding the
> reference to SSN further down)?
>
>
>
> 2. Statistical Data on the Web Best Practices
>
> Should this  mention this spatial somehow?   If it is intended to  be of
> wider scope than “spatial statistics”?  in section 3.2 it becomes clear
> that it is not confined to spatial.    So that leads me to suggest that the
> Charter be renamed “Spatial and Statistical Data on the Web Interest Group”
> to be more properly defined.
>
>
>
> 3. Sensors & Observations Note
>
> Good idea to include this.
>
>
>
> 4. In section 5 I can see this is highlighted,
>
> presumably for  comment:  “ and using the GitHub issue tracker
> <https://w3c.github.io/sdw/jwoc/%5blink%20to%20Github%20repo%5d>.”
>
> This is a good idea; I agree. And I like that it is in the Charter.
>
>
>
> 5. Section 6 decision policy troubles me a bit. I can see the brave
> attempt to deal with the expected  asynchronicity of the Group.
>
> I am concerned about the “consensus emerges with little formal voting
> being required.”
>
>
>
> Given the very common situation of apparent consensus emerging within a
> meeting, but then *much *later the whole issue comes up again – I think
> it would be a good idea to *record*  “decisions” *whenever* consensus is
> believed to be achieved.
>
> Is such a “decision” a “resolution”?  ---I think so.  The important thing
> is that “consensus emerging” transitions to a formal decision
>
> (to be unambiguously distinguished  from “*we had a discussion but did
> not resolve anything*”, or “*we already decided this when a few of us got
> together*”).
>
>
>
> Then, I would  remove the explicit “call for consensus” step, instead
> requiring that it simply  always applies. That is, I propose
>
>
>
> *Any resolution (including publication decisions) taken in a face-to-face
> meeting or teleconference will be considered provisional for a period of 10
> working days. If no objections are raised on the mailing list by the end of
> the response period, the resolution will be considered to have consensus as
> a resolution of the Interest Group.*
>
>
>
> This behoves group members to keep track of minutes of unattended meetings
> and to speak up fast; and it behoves Chairs to be crystal clear that a
> decision has been made.
>
>
>
> -Kerry
>
>
>