W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > May 2017

JWOC - input sought

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 14:18:38 +0100
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Scott Simmons <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>
Message-ID: <20f00dd4-10a6-b48a-4338-c2803bc378c1@w3.org>
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
Received on Wednesday, 10 May 2017 13:18:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 10 May 2017 13:18:46 UTC