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

Re: JWOC - input sought

From: Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 14:59:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMTVsukog8xwQB8fFTgbr0-fZJvce4MFzZMWJDHa=Qso8CiV=g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jon Blower <j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk>
Cc: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Scott Simmons <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>
Hi Jon - thanks for that . A few initial thoughts inline below on this
while it's fresh in my mind from the call earlier.



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
Received on Wednesday, 10 May 2017 14:00:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:32 UTC