Re: JWOC - input sought

Hi Jon - thanks for that . A few initial thoughts inline below on this
while it's fresh in my mind from the call earlier.

Cheers

Bill

On 10 May 2017 at 14:50, Jon Blower <j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk> wrote:

> 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.
>

The W3C angle is about the web related aspects in general, or at least
'data on the web', so certainly not limited to RDF.

>
> 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.
>

My strategy is: simply don't read it :-) Or rather, I skim the subject
lines and properly read the things I am most involved in.  No-one can read
all of it and you can always catch up from the archives.  I am content with
having thousands of unread emails in my inbox, but for people who are
troubled by that, you can always set up a rule to put it in a folder for
times when you want to look at it.

>
> 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
>
>
>
>