- From: Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 15:08:47 +0000
- To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, public-sdw-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAHrFjcmq3yFjRhKxvh-xipxfKndcmrxS4q+kuz8eztAKWCThyA@mail.gmail.com>
Hello Phil, I think a key issue will be the balance of activities that are "semantic" perhaps most at home within the existing Geosemantics DWG and those which cover the broader topics coverage / BP related which would be the focus of the new JWOC ? We don't want to duplicate efforts neither do we want to hijack existing OGC activities. I agree with the monthly telecom tempo... Ed On Wed, 10 May 2017 at 16:01 Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote: > Thanks to everyone who has commented so far. I have added the SSN Primer > to the deliverables list. > > Also, I've been reminded that the September TC will be in Southampton - > which could be a good place for the JWOC to have its first F2F. The > second could then be at TPAC in November, but let's get the thing set up > first. > > Phil > > On 10/05/2017 14:18, Phil Archer 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 <07887%20767755> > @philarcher1 > > -- *Ed Parsons *FRGS Geospatial Technologist, Google +44 7825 382263 @edparsons www.edparsons.com
Received on Wednesday, 10 May 2017 15:09:31 UTC