Re: Retrospective review: August focus days

I think they’ve actually got this well covered. I’ve discussed it with Rob Atkinson, Nick Car and Simon Cox who are all on the working group.

Simon suggested preparing an RFC and submitting it to IETF using Ruben and Lars’s ‘Profile’ RFC as a starting point. Nick’s also working on guidelines for profiling which may be a useful companion but shouldn’t stop us working through this one now. I’m happy to prepare this and circulate it to the broader SDWIG group as a starting point as part of the BP stream. I’m sure there will be other RFCs worth considering relating to matters such as spatial representations, etc., in line with other best practices.

Shall I use our GitHub repo to do this so it’s transparent and easy to provide comments on?


Joseph Abhayaratna
Chief Technical Officer

PSMA Australia Limited
Unit 6, 113 Canberra Avenue
Griffith ACT 2603
T: +61 (0) 2 6260 9042
M: +61 (0) 488 301 050
F: +61 (0) 2 6260 9001
Twitter: @Jo_PSMA

On 14 Aug 2018, at 6:02 pm, Linda van den Brink <<>> wrote:

I think that’s a good argument. Would you post this over at the DXWG group?

Or I could do it if you don’t mind my copying your text.

Van: Joseph Abhayaratna <<>>
Verzonden: zondag 12 augustus 2018 02:00
Aan: Jeremy Tandy <<>>
Onderwerp: Re: Retrospective review: August focus days

Hi Jeremy,

Is it a stretch to say that CRS negotiation is a special case of profile negotiation? One relates to what response data is returned and how it is structured (the view or representation seem like adequate synonyms for profile within this context) - one relates to a description of how the content for one (or potentially more) of the attributes, geospatial objects specifically, should be returned.

If a resource supports three profiles (e.g., in the case of a resource serving address data:<> PostalAddress for the web developer audience, a country specific Address view for national context, and a ISO19160 Address view to support international context) and two coordinate reference systems (e.g., region specific and WGS84), I don’t think we want six “profiles”.

They sound like things worth separating.

Discussion continues both in SDW IG and DXWG regarding CRS negotiation. Lars G Svennson [suggests]( that CRS negotiation is a special case of profile negotiation. There is also a discussion about use of HTTP headers to enable such negotiation, but Peter [notes]( that use of HTTP headers are a challenge for MapML as currently specified.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 10, 2018, at 9:52 AM, Jeremy Tandy <<>> wrote:

Hello SDW IG folks …

The focus days for August are coming to an end. This email is a retrospective look at our progress.

And in an attempt to improve visibility of focus days, Linda and Jeremy have scheduled the next focus days for 3-7th September. This is the week before the OGC TC meeting in Stuttgart - we're hoping that these focus days will enable us to hit the ground running and take best advantage of the OGC TC meeting.

For reference, you can find the status of all the SDW IG activities (as of Monday 6-August) in the [email]( compiled by Linda and Jeremy earlier this week.

Also note that the teleconference about the [OGC Tech-Trends]( is scheduled for next week: 14-Aug. See the email from George Percival [here]( George asks for review and comment on the [Spatial Data on the Web group of Trends](; for each Trend there is a GitHub Issue link where you can make comments.

In terms of housekeeping, Francois made some updates to the homepage and Linda updated the [README]( and the [member welcome](

Linda also created a new issue, [Issue #1069]( asking for IG feedback on whether implementation evidence is a NECESSARY part of the standards development process - even for conceptual model (aka. data models) and vocabularies. This stems from the discussion about CityJSON / CityGML. Please give your thoughts - we'd like to be able to present a SDW IG position on this at the Stuttgart OGC TC meeting in 2nd-week of September.

Jeremy has reorganised the new Project proposals. We now have a new placeholder [Project for proposals]( - imaginatively called `Proposals`. Here you'll find [Issue #1067]( for "360-day calendar" and [Issue #1068]( for "Dicing or partitioning ontology for RDF Data Cube".

Please review these proposals; before we promote them to IG activities, we need sufficient support from the IG members. "Dicing or partitioning ontology for RDF Data Cube" already has some discussion; nothing yet for  "360-day calendar".

A look ahead to the coming meetings:

[OGC TC, Stuttgart]( (September)
* Thanks to Clemens for pointing the IG at the joint OWS Common / Architecture DWG sessions.
* Linda will present in the closing plenary on behalf of the SDW IG describing what we're doing, our scope/mandate etc. - particularly how we SUPPORT the existing standards process rather than circumvent it. Linda, Jeremy and Scott are developing slides for the presentation.
* Linda has organised a slot for WebVMT in the Defence and Intelligence DWG.

[W3C TPAC, Lyon]( (October)
* WebVMT and MapML are keen to run breakout sessions. Linda and Jeremy will set up a conference call with Rob and Peter, plus Francois, to discuss the approach, stakeholders and intended outcomes.
* CRS negotiation / Profile negotiation (stimulated from a discussion about MapML) is a shared concern with the Data Exchange Working Group (DXWG); we'll make sure to catch up at TPAC to discuss this further.
* We will also aim to catch up with the Linked Building Data Community Group - in particular to share info on 3D geometry serialisations (3D-tiles) - Josh: any update here?
* Opportunity to canvas wider support for the Statistical data on the Web activity
* Opportunity to look at accessibility concerns for Web-mapping

Project updates:

[SSN/SOSA ontology amendments](
We had a new bug raised: [Issue #1062]( Armin responded to this. His [Pull Request #1072](  awaits review.

[Geospatial Web Roadmap](
Linda has progressed further with the roadmap; with the [first version]( published for review with help from Francois. Linda invites feedback via [Issue #1065]( Thank you to Scott for getting the ball rolling.

Linda has also created a list of the OGC standards that are "not yet friendly enough". The intent is to share this with the OGC Architecture Board (OAB) to help drive discussion about evolution of OGC standards. Linda will share an initial draft with the OAB during the Stuttgart OGC TC meeting to see if the list, plus rationale for each item on the list, is being provided in a way that is helpful for OAB's discussion. Feedback on the list and associated rationale is requested via [Issue #1057]( Thank you to Clemens, Scott and Peter for your comments. More feedback requested please!

[Spatial data on the Web Best Practices](
Focus in the Best Practice space is the implementation reports. Michael promises to progress things once he's returned from holiday and has had a chance to merge all the commits into the gh-pages branch so that the rest of us know what to review.

[Statistical data on the Web](
Bill published some updates on the stats-bp/ - adding information about statistics usage / requirements etc. for each of the general Data on the Web Best Practices. This builds on the original work from Andrea Perego.

Linda has organised a slot for WebVMT in the Defence and Intelligence DWG during the upcoming OGC TC meeting.

Rob is seeking ideas for OGC testbed development - see [Issue 1063]( However, note that we're waiting on feedback from Scott regarding the best way to proceed with WebVMT in the OGC community.

Rob is also seeking suggestions on topics for his proposed breakout session at TPAC - see [Issue 1064](

Discussion continues both in SDW IG and DXWG regarding CRS negotiation. Lars G Svennson [suggests]( that CRS negotiation is a special case of profile negotiation. There is also a discussion about use of HTTP headers to enable such negotiation, but Peter [notes]( that use of HTTP headers are a challenge for MapML as currently specified.

No progress has been made on the following Projects:

* [Linked Building Data](
* [SSN Extensions](
* [SSN Primer](
* [CityJSON](
* [Time ontology amendments](

Please look at the Projects themselves, or the [status update]( to see where help is required.

Finally, we still have no contact regarding [Describing moving objects]( Linda and Jeremy propose that we _retire_ this activity. Things only happen in SDW IG if there are people willing to do the work.

Linda and Jeremy
SDW IG co-chairs

<tech trends process.pdf>

Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2018 08:22:59 UTC