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

RE: JWOC - input sought

From: Byron Cochrane <bcochrane@linz.govt.nz>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 15:50:03 +1200
To: 'Phil Archer' <phila@w3.org>, 'SDW WG Public List' <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, 'Scott Simmons' <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>
Message-ID: <666FB8D75E95AE42965A0E76A5E5337E1650B040FA@prdlsmmsg01.ad.linz.govt.nz>
Strongly in favour of this initiative.
1. Likely Yes
2. Monthly
3. Mostly correct.
        Unsure of the relationship between DXBP and OGC DCAT efforts and if they belong here.
        What about the Mixed Reality Services Working Group?  Is there a possibility that this group could liaison with that effort?

Cheers,
Byron Cochrane

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org]
Sent: Thursday, 11 May 2017 1:19 a.m.
To: SDW WG Public List; Scott Simmons
Subject: JWOC - input sought

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


This message contains information, which may be in confidence and may be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not peruse, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately (Phone 0800 665 463 or info@linz.govt.nz) and destroy the original message. LINZ accepts no responsibility for changes to this email, or for any attachments, after its transmission from LINZ. Thank You.
Received on Friday, 12 May 2017 03:50:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 12 May 2017 03:50:50 UTC