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

Re: JWOC - input sought

From: Scott Simmons <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 09:27:09 -0600
Message-Id: <0F64FC49-1089-4D4B-B4F8-79ABCCA87EB6@opengeospatial.org>
Cc: Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
To: Jon Blower <j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk>

The JWOC concept is patterned on a similar agreement that OGC has with ISO / TC 211 where we have an overarching coordination group (the JWOC) which then finds the appropriate deliverable-centered group to actually do the work. In OGC-speak, the JWOC would coordinate joint work between W3C and OGC Standards Working Groups as well as provide a high-level forum for general topics of interest to both groups. However, the JWOC could also generate Notes/Discussion Papers or Best Practices, just not Recommendations/standards.

Best Regards,

> On May 10, 2017, at 8:16 AM, Jon Blower <j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk> wrote:
> Thanks Bill, just replying quickly:
> Ø  The W3C angle is about the web related aspects in general, or at least 'data on the web', so certainly not limited to RDF.   
> I appreciate this, but I was just meaning that, if this proposed new group has these three specific strands of work (and deliverables), the nature of the CoverageJSON work is a bit different to QB4ST and EO-QB. If we want this new group to continue to encompass wider “spatial data on the web” issues we probably need a deliverable attached to it, analogous to the BP deliverable from this WG. I can see that there is a possible “statistical data on the web” deliverable, which might go some way to addressing some wider issues (although I’m not quite sure why it’s in this group particularly).
> Ø  you can always set up a rule to put it in a folder for times when you want to look at it.
> Yes, and I do this for other mailing lists – and then they are out-of-sight-out-of-mind and they never get read! ;-). I’m just suggesting that there should be a “low traffic” way to engage with the group (as other working groups provide). I’m not complaining but observing – this is probably the highest-traffic working group I’ve ever participated in and personally I think this is an issue when we’re asking people to find spare time to join (and when there are multiple strands of activity). Having more “filterable” subject lines might be helpful, for instance.
> Cheers,
> Jon

Received on Wednesday, 10 May 2017 15:27:40 UTC

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