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

Re: JWOC - input sought

From: Jon Blower <j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 13:50:22 +0000
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Scott Simmons <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>
Message-ID: <81FF4B2E-13DA-4A83-974B-9C077B420FF6@reading.ac.uk>
Hi Phil,

Thanks very much for this. Just some thoughts, some of which I expressed on the call today and am giving a wider airing:

1. CoverageJSON is slightly different from EO-QB and QB4ST, being much less concerned with RDF stuff at its core (although RDF is certainly relevant). While I appreciate the links between all these things, I wonder if there is sufficient interest in this community for this to be exactly the right forum. But I do value seeing what’s going on in these other strands and hope that one day we can forge some links.

2. Also, we will already have a Note on CoverageJSON from this current group. I would like to go beyond this in the next iteration of CoverageJSON if possible, so I do wonder what the value of producing another Note would be.

3. Related to this, I think it would be important to look at how to get the existing OGC community more involved in this group. People already commit significant “spare time” to OGC activities and, with the best will in the world, may not feel able to get their heads around a new group, despite recognising the group’s value. Is there a way in which we can engage the wider OGC community systematically without asking for much more effort on their part? I appreciate that there could be thorny issues around IP etc here.

4. If the group formally comes under the Geosemantics DWG then I think this sends a message to the some folk that the group is firmly about Semantic Web, RDF etc. Whereas these are clearly important, there are many who would feel that that’s not their area of interest, (even if they actually have related interests!). Our own Best Practices endeavour to be neutral about RDF, Linked Data etc. I would tend to prefer establishing a new DWG that doesn’t come with these pre-conceptions although this may not be trivial to define and some may feel this is fragmentary.

5. On a personal note, it’s tough to maintain the level of interaction that such a group justifiably demands, despite being interested. It would be useful to work out how to accommodate those who might want to “dip in”. For example, rather than receiving all emails from the group (which can be a LOT ;-), perhaps “observers” could receive a subset of material with the major discussion points at less frequent intervals. I know it’s tough to manage “lightweights” like me, but this is a real practical concern I think.

Hope this helps,
Jon


On 10/05/2017 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
    
    

Received on Wednesday, 10 May 2017 13:51:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 10 May 2017 13:51:01 UTC