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

RE: JWOC - input sought

From: Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 15:07:15 +0000
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Scott Simmons <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>
Message-ID: <3DAD8A5A545D7644A066C4F2E82072883E2CDA95@EXXCMPD1DAG4.cmpd1.metoffice.gov.uk>
Phil, Scott and colleagues

Excellent suggestion.

1. Would you participate?
Yes. 

2. If yes, what frequency of meeting would you expect? Weekly? Bi-weekly? Monthly?
Monthly initially, then fortnightly as deliverable deadlines approach and hopefully not whoosh past. 

3. Do you think the deliverable list is correct? If not, what needs changing?
How about putting Data Tiling ('dicing') onto QB4ST and QB Statistical Extensions.

Chris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 2:19 PM
> To: SDW WG Public List; Scott Simmons
> Subject: JWOC - input sought
> 
> 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 15:07:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 10 May 2017 15:07:51 UTC