The Geosemantics session is specifically for SDW docs and discussion, although I won't be able to be there in person. --Josh Lieberman > On Jun 12, 2017, at 6:39 AM, Clemens Portele <portele@interactive-instruments.de> wrote: > > Hi Linda, all, > > I will also be in St John’s and could support. > > In my view we should focus on the ones that are on pending documents in the OGC portal and where OGC members are voting on or formally reviewing a document, i.e. the BP (under TC vote) and the Time Ontology (as Simon sent a request for implementation input to the TC and an RFC is in preparation). > > Regarding the slots, in addition to the TC plenaries and the open OAB session, another option could be the "future directions" session, but this may depend on what is planned for that session (no information on the agenda yet). The Architecture DWG (for the BP) and the GeoSemWeb DWG (for both) may also be candidates, if we think that we should address specific DWGs in addition to the plenaries. > > Clemens > >> On 8. Jun 2017, at 14:00, Linda van den Brink <L.vandenBrink@geonovum.nl> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> For the OGC folks among us. >> >> The BP is currently subject of an electronic vote among OGC TC members. In order to get enough members to vote and thus get quorum and get the BP published as an OGC Best Practice, we should bring the BP vote to the attention of the membership at the upcoming OGC meeting (which takes place in two weeks’ time @ St John, New Foundland). >> >> A few questions: >> - Is it only the BP we should be lobbying about, or other products of this WG as well? >> - Which OGC groups should we target e.g. for a short presentation? >> - Who will be in St John to help with this? (I will be there) >> >> Linda >
Received on Monday, 12 June 2017 11:11:25 UTC