Re: JWOC - input sought

This will be a challenge because the wider domain of dynamic features is still an active research area. The group could certainly function though to identify the few critical representations that would be useful to large audiences.

—Josh


> On May 10, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk> wrote:
> 
> Krzysztof,
> 
> I support your suggestion, because the Moving Feature standard in OGC, drawing on ISO too, is a bit isolated, and in the Meteorology and Oceanography domains, we have identified these data retrieval patterns as very important and we are trying to create an application profile of the Web Coverage Service to ensure they are handled efficiently and effectively.
> 
> Some further detailed examples are:
> 
> a) Vertical cross section along a 2D surface trajectory (we called it a "curtain")
> 
> b) Border zone around a trajectory, called a "Buffer" in 2D, and perhaps "corridor" in three or more dimensions.
> 
> c) A (t,z) vertical cross section, called a Hovmöller diagram, giving a 'Lagrangian' viewpoint as opposed to an 'Eulerian' viewpoint of a normal (x,z) cross section.
> 
> Chris
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Krzysztof Janowicz [mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 4:30 PM
>> To: Raúl García Castro; Phil Archer; SDW WG Public List; Scott Simmons
>> Subject: Re: JWOC - input sought
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>>> 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?
>> 
>> Monthly
>> 
>>> 1. Would you participate?
>> 
>> Yes
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>