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

Re: JWOC - input sought

From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 08:29:46 -0700
To: Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Scott Simmons <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>
Message-ID: <0199b5fe-ac7f-8630-afaa-7ad351624a8a@ucsb.edu>

> 3. Do you think the deliverable list is correct? If not, what needs
> changing? 

IMHO, there is one big source of data (and applications) of interest to 
W3C and OGC that we have not really discussed in detail in the sdw group 
and these are data related to movement, e.g., trajectories, paths, 
moving objects, and so forth. Applications range from transportation, 
tourism, migration, location-based services, travelblogs, to wildlife 
tracking. I would love to see them on the agenda, e.g., to define an 
ontology for them. Well, and of course the SSN Primer.

> 2. If yes, what frequency of meeting would you expect? Weekly?
> Bi-weekly? Monthly? 


> 1. Would you participate? 


On 05/10/2017 06:27 AM, Raúl García Castro wrote:
> Dear Phil,
> I'm in favour of the initiative. Answering the questions:
> 1. Yes
> 2. Monthly
> 3. SSN Primer
> Kind regards,
> El 10/5/17 a las 15:18, Phil Archer escribió:
>> 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/

Krzysztof Janowicz

Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060

Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu
Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
Received on Wednesday, 10 May 2017 15:30:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 10 May 2017 15:30:23 UTC