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

Re: SSN Primer added & first F2F date (was Re: JWOC - input sought)

From: Clemens Portele <portele@interactive-instruments.de>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 15:28:12 +0000
To: Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>
CC: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F3169392-0F88-491F-A2AA-EF01090BE68C@interactive-instruments.de>
Hi Phil,

thanks.

First a question, since I am not that familiar with Interest Groups. On the W3C site I found the following description about the scope of the different group types (https://www.w3.org/Consortium/activities#about):

* Working Groups typically produce deliverables (e.g., standards track technical reports, software, test suites, and reviews of the deliverables of other groups).
* The primary goal of an Interest Group is to bring together people who wish to evaluate potential Web technologies and policies. An Interest Group is a forum for the exchange of ideas.

>From that description I would have expected that an Interest Group would mainly focus on BP type deliverables or other kinds of Notes (new ones or keeping existing ones up-to-date), while the current list of deliverables looks more like a Working Group. Is that an issue?

In any case, for me the main interest would be to keep our current BP deliverable up-to-date and relevant. For this, monthly calls should be fine, I think.

Clemens


On 10. May 2017, at 17:08, Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com<mailto:eparsons@google.com>> wrote:

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<mailto: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<http://philarcher.org/>
+44 (0)7887 767755<tel:07887%20767755>
@philarcher1

--

Ed Parsons FRGS
Geospatial Technologist, Google

+44 7825 382263 @edparsons
www.edparsons.com<http://www.edparsons.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 10 May 2017 15:28:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 10 May 2017 15:28:50 UTC