Re: JWOC - input sought

Dear Phil,

I’m interested in to join the IG, here is my answer:

1. Yes,   I will participate.
2. Prefer Monthly+
3. My primary interest is SSN Primer, but, RDF  Cube extensions and spatial+statistic+semantic are also of interest.

Best,

Danh

On 10/05/2017, 15:18, "Phil Archer" <phila@w3.org> 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
    @philarcher1

Received on Thursday, 11 May 2017 09:36:56 UTC