W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdwig@w3.org > February 2018

[minutes] Spatial Data on the Web IG F2F - Day 1/2

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 18:20:53 +0100
To: <public-sdwig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <022201d3a9a6$0e6a5030$2b3ef090$@w3.org>
Hi,

The minutes of today's F2F are available at:
https://www.w3.org/2018/02/19-sdw-minutes.html
... and copied as raw text below.

Summary of Resolutions taken during the meeting:
1. The SDW IG will regularly review the OGC trends and W3C funnel for common threads during F2F meetings with a view to tracking progress and identifying new topics of interest for the W3C funnel
2. The SDW IG will have a monthly review of the SDW tagged item in the W3C funnel (during plenary calls)
3. Pending agreement from W3C strategy team, the SDW IG will use the W3C strategy funnel to monitor relevant concepts and ideas tagged with an "geospatial" tag, to be managed by the w3c staff contact (actual tag name might need to be adjusted)
4. The SDW IG will develop and maintain a Spatial Data on the Web roadmap with initial draft ready for next F2F. Linda to act as main editor with help from François
5. The SDW IG will inform the OGC Architecture Board when it moves an item forward in the funnel

Summary of Action Items:
1. François to check with W3C strategy team whether the SDW IG can reuse the Strategy funnel
2. brinkwoman to draft 2 slides for OGC Orleans TC opening plenary

Thanks,
Francois.

--
Spatial Data on the Web IG F2F - Day 1/2
19 February 2018

   [2]Agenda [3]IRC log

      [2] https://www.w3.org/2017/sdwig/meetings/f2f-1.html
      [3] https://www.w3.org/2018/02/19-sdw-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Bill Roberts, Chris Little, Clemens Portele, Francois
          Daoust, Jeremy Tandy, Linda van den Brink, Michael
          Gordon, Scott Simmons, Rob Smith

   Regrets

   Chair
          Jeremy, Linda

   Scribe
          MichaelGordon, tidoust

Contents

     * [4]Meeting Minutes
         1. [5]Informal discussions
         2. [6]Objectives
         3. [7]Spatial Data on the Web Best Practices
         4. [8]Purpose and operation of SDW IG
     * [9]Summary of Action Items
     * [10]Summary of Resolutions

Meeting Minutes

Informal discussions

   Several informal and non minuted discussions took place in the
   morning. Some topics mentioned: Best practices, tiling issues
   of all kinds, map representations, progressive "rendering" (à
   la JPEG, not only for rendering), issues with spatial and
   temporal aspects for statistical data, etc.

   Goal is to stick to Web-specific problems, not to solve all the
   world's problems

Objectives

   Michael: I want to get to a state where we have defined
   activities to encourage adoption of the best practices

   Rob: I'm very focused here. I want to understand the process in
   W3C to take a concept from early stages to a standard. Been
   involved with CCSTS in a previous life. Worked on CFTP, sort of
   FTP in space, non chatty version of FTP.
   … Took 6 years of my life. Some of it was ditched away for lack
   of support. Back to W3C, I wonder how to prgress my idea I'm
   thinking about, get some feedback on whether that's a brilliant
   idea or just something that is of no interest to others.
   … Focus on implementations to make sure that features in the
   spec are useful.

   [similar to OGC testbed approach and W3C's standardization
   process]

   Linda: I like the fact that we have an impact on OGC and
   improve their standards. Want to continue in that direction.
   Another thing I'd like to figure out is the impact we could
   have on W3C.
   … I know what I want from OGC. Not sure what I want from W3C
   yet.
   … Still interested in Best Practices, adoption.

   Jeremy: Want to make sure that we're clear on the purpose of
   the group. What we want to achieve, how we're going to do that.
   Do we have the right people engaged. Are we doing the right
   stuff.

   Francois: Same as Jeremy. Nothing to add

   Bill: I want the Stats on the Web BP to move forward.
   Understand the scope of the group. What we will do or not.

   Clemens: Largely interested in the Best Practices. How we can
   promote adoption. How the IG works, what directions we're
   taking.

   Chris: Getting answers to statistical use cases that I
   proposed.
   … Standard vocabularies to express these things.

   Clemens: Also wondering how this is web-related.

   Chris: I would like to have practical statisticians involved in
   the process.
   … Follows how the RDF Data Cube originated from SDMX,
   statisticians.
   … Couldn't agree on how to do aggregates, etc.

   Jeremy: Scott will join the 3-5pm slot to talk about process.
   We can go on beyond 5 if needed.
   … Everybody's happy with the agenda?

Spatial Data on the Web Best Practices

   MichaelGordon: Within this subgroup, we started to look at what
   activities we could be doing to maintain these best practices
   and activities we could be doing to encourage the adoption of
   these best practices.
   … We want to get feedback on the best practices
   … Working on where the most important gaps are.
   … That seems like a reasonable plan to take things to the next
   level.
   … On the last call, we discussed encouraging adoption. We
   started to come up with a rough plan of taking a domain focused
   approach.
   … [looking at the audience section in the Best Practices
   document]

   [11]Spatial Data on the Web Best Practices

     [11] https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-bp/

   [12]Audience section in Spatial Data on the Web Best Practices

     [12] https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-bp/#audience

   Jeremy: 14 best practices which cover specific stuff on spatial
   data [going through main best practices]
   … Ends with metadata, because that's scary. Now using data
   description not to scare people away.
   … Clemens, can you explain Web-related?

   ClemensPortele: Not sure how to define it. The whole way in
   which the Web is used is evolving. Looking at that is what we
   should be doing.
   … We all work with spatial and temporal data. Been doing that
   for a long time.
   … Best practices was looking at how the Web was used and trying
   to improve it.
   … Need to look at evolving things.
   … Not only about looking at use cases.
   … For instance, WPS does not have any notion of "spatial".
   There is often a will to do too generic things. We need to keep
   some stronger focus.
   … Need to look at what other groups are doing at W3C, e.g. Web
   components, etc.

   Jeremy: We've all put data on the Web for some time, but "you
   don't want to use the Web as a gigantic USB drive" (copyright
   Phil Archer)
   … One of the ways is to make sure we publish linked data
   … Another way is to say that we're willing to process data in a
   Web browser.
   … Linked data approach is not necessarily RDF. RESTful web
   services.

   ChrisLittle: Having looked at cross-domain usage of data, I see
   that control vocabularies and exposure of that is useful for
   cross-domain usage.

   billroberts: No need to have specific domain knowledge in
   software to process data

   Jeremy: But, first, you need to agree on a set of use cases
   that are common

   ChrisLittle: Not necessarily about specifying a new vocabulary,
   probably more about identifying an existing vocabulary, and
   possibly reducing it for usage on the Web.

   MichaelGordon: From the audience section, web-related is also
   around the need to understand the possible usage of your data
   once published on the Web.

   Linda: Is there a definition of the Web somewhere at W3C?

   Francois: Architecture of the World Wide Web, volume 1. That's
   basically it.

   Clemens: In practice, we also see other developments than on
   the Web. How do we come up with decisions on directions so that
   developers can continue to use spatial data in an easy way?

   MichaelGordon: What is messaging around Spatial Data on the Web
   best practices and cutting edge ideas that are being explored
   here and there (e.g. MapML)

   Jeremy: Previously, we focused more on the architecture of the
   WWW. But now, there are a bunch of APIs that obscure the URLs.
   Developers need to process data at a more pragmatic level. So
   we need to understand that and adjust the best practices
   accordingly.

   ClemensPortele: That was my point.

   MichaelGordon: In the best practices document, we're looking at
   people familiar with the web and people familiar with
   publishing spatial data (and perhaps less so with the web)
   … Plan is to look at different kinds of domains.
   … Spatial Data publishers, or Web developers. Need to craft a
   different messaging for different audiences.

   [13]Work items and activities for SDW BP

     [13] https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/bp/work-items-and-activities.md

   MichaelGordon: Thought we could exchange ideas on post-it
   notes. Spend a few minutes on identifying different domains.
   And then dig deeper into who can be behind them.
   … Example: let's take land registration / cadastral. Variety of
   publishers. Land registry in the UK. Various groups of users.
   People trying to build businesses around taking land
   registration data and doing risk analysis. Financial
   institutions.
   … Some of them may have different levels of webiness.
   … Some may need to know about the Best Practices to help them
   approach the data.
   … Example of an application that mashes registration data and
   data from local authorities and give information to farmers
   about how to optimize their farmland.
   … Easier to focus on the publisher side than on the users.

   billroberts: Tricky to divide this up. Starting point is people
   publishing data, I think you're right about that. Not
   exclusively government, but lots of government data.
   … Chicken and egg element. Usually, the response is along the
   lines of "this is going to cost money, people don't ask for it"

   MichaelGordon: Approach is, when you're considering publishing
   data on the Web, here are best practices that we recommend in
   doing so.
   … Not mandatory.
   … Being aware of best practices.
   … More appealing than mandating.

   RobSmith: Does it not boil down to business cases? Some
   entrepreneur would come up with an idea to streamline
   something, making money down the line. It's a way of us helping
   you to deal with your area of expertise.
   … Publishers are surely looking at who their audience are,
   otherwise what's the point of publishing.

   Jeremy: To summarize, we've identified a gap that publishers
   don't do anything unless there's a large demand for it. The
   technologists themselves are not going to make money directly
   from it. It's chicken and egg. Need to have data flowing from
   the publishers to the Web before developers can leverage it.
   … We need to proxy the users in some way, for people who work
   in the community. I can achieve this business goal if I can
   access the data in that way.
   … We have a limited number of resources. I wonder if there are
   particular success stories that we could identify, or places
   where we have inside knowledge
   … so that we could promote success after following best
   practices.
   … Thinking about specific users, business value that they get

   billroberts: Trying to find examples of where there are people
   achieving good things with data on the Web. Identify which
   aspects of the best practices helped people.

   RobSmith: You could also take the opposite approach, looking at
   something that failed, and identify practices that they did not
   follow.

   billroberts: Trickier to point out negatively at someone
   though.

   MichaelGordon: The spatial data available from authorities is
   often not accessible (embedded in PDFs, ...)

   Linda: Would be good to go to publishers and say "look, these
   users need that and cannot"

   MichaelGordon: Is there any potential for utilizing the use
   cases that were already brought down, for helping finding some
   specific examples.
   … If we could identify examples of following / not following
   best practices

   [Some discussion on the use cases & requirements document, and
   the possibility to reach out to people who submitted the use
   cases in the first place to collect practical implementation
   experience]

   ClemensPortele: Not enough resources in this group. Need to
   focus on things we implemented. One thing is promoting, the
   other is collecting examples of where best practices were
   implemented.

   MichaelGordon: With examples, we can promote something.

   ClemensPortele: Everybody will promote the best practices in
   the environment he's active in, anyhow. I don't think that we
   can have a big promotion campaign. We don't have a budget for
   that.
   … Good to have a collection of examples. Needs to be a low
   effort activity.

   Linda: We can start with examples that are in the document
   itself. Just need to extract them.

   ClemensPortele: We just need to have real examples.

   RobSmith: Picking the brains of people who tried to implement
   the best practices might help gather examples and possible
   issues with best practices.

   Jeremy: Another direction is to check with the ODI. Think about
   other places where we know folks are implementing spatial data.
   One is INSPIRE. Is there opportunity to engage with JRC to try
   to understand what directions they are going?
   … Do a case study of what they've done.
   … The other one is OGC testbed. We don't have resources, but
   OGC testbed is a sponsored thing. Is there an opportunity for
   us to look at particular activities in testbed 14?

   MichaelGordon: They are references to the best practices in
   different OGC efforts.

   ClemensPortele: I'll give an update

   Jeremy: By hooking ourselves in the OGC innovation program, we
   don't need to set up a full process.

   ChrisLittle: Engineering reports show implementation issues and
   gaps in standards

   RobSmith: Geovation (OS innovation program) could phrase a
   competition question such as: how can best practices improve a
   certain service?

   MichaelGordon: Will need to think about it, we tend to focus on
   domain-specific issues.
   … That said, there could be subchallenges more focused on that.
   … Partners are usually publishers of some kind.

   RobSmith: So you could promote the best practices to the
   publishers too

   ClemensPortele: OK, let me a short update on OGC
   … What I did very early before we finished on the Best
   Practices work is to start discussing alignment with WFS. We
   skipped WFS 2.0 and focused on WFS/FES 3.0, focused on
   following the best practices.
   … Open developer progress (which is not the default in OGC).
   … Some things are straight implementations of the best
   practices, some more indirectly.
   … For instance, we don't want to be tied to specific schemas.
   … Similar to best practices where we did not mandate some of
   them, merely listed some.

   <ClemensPortele> [14]http://ogc.standardstracker.org/
   show_request.cgi?id=488

     [14] http://ogc.standardstracker.org/show_request.cgi?id=488

   <ClemensPortele> [15]https://github.com/opengeospatial/WFS_FES

     [15] https://github.com/opengeospatial/WFS_FES

   ClemensPortele: See the change request I just pasted
   … We separated the core spec from something that is more of a
   guide.
   … We hope to have a version ready by the end of this month, and
   another one at the end of next month.
   … We also get a lot of activities on some of the issues. Very
   few OGC members, lots of external people. Good that we're
   reaching a lot of developers that weren't following the OGC
   process.
   … The version that we'll have at the end of March will be the
   basis for an ISO standard.
   … WFS hackathon in two weeks in Colorado. We'll work with
   people there during two days. The idea is to get some
   developers before we get too far in this. Is it easy enough? Is
   the use of Open API good?
   … I would like to have people develop a client to show that it
   is relatively rapid to develop something, much faster than with
   previous WFS spec.
   … March 6-7 in Fort Collins, Colorado.
   … Another activity is the testbed.

   <ClemensPortele> [16]https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/
   77327#NGWFS3.0

     [16] https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/77327#NGWFS3.0

   ClemensPortele: Next generation OGC Web services. Security is
   involved. It explicitly references best practices that should
   get tested and implemented there.

   <ClemensPortele> [17]http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/
   initiatives/wfs3hackathon

     [17] http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/initiatives/wfs3hackathon

   ClemensPortele: That's one activity and there are several
   others that are actually using the WFS.
   … Another activity is complex feature handling, which is going
   to the next level. Extension to the core. 3D, solids, complex
   queries. That's more investigation, no implementation.
   … The third thing is compliance testing for WFS 3.0. Also
   useful for the whole activity.
   … Implementation-wise, currently we have two. CubeWerx, and
   interactive instruments.
   … Government agency is hosting these things.
   … [demoing Flurstück]
   … Developed for a hackathon, because last time, people
   complained that SDIs were too hard to use.
   … Much easier to browse and use the data
   … Even people who are in the geo business see it's easier to
   use, if they're ready to restrict features.
   … So lots of activities there, and implementations are ongoing.

   ClemensPortele: Regarding INSPIRE, we wrote a document for JRC,
   analysis of all the best practices (Data on the Web Best
   Practices and Spatial Data on the Web Best Practices)
   … and how they related to INSPIRE

   <ClemensPortele> [18]https://ies-svn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/
   mig-inspire/wiki/
   MIG-T_meeting_44#INSPIRE-amp-spatial-data-on-the-Web

     [18] https://ies-svn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/mig-inspire/wiki/MIG-T_meeting_44#INSPIRE-amp-spatial-data-on-the-Web

   ClemensPortele: The next meeting for this plans a one-day
   discussion on best practices

   <ClemensPortele> [19]https://ies-svn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
   attachments/download/2178/
   DOC-7_ELISE_D2.1.1_Spatial_Data_on_the_Web_tools_and_guidance_f
   or_data_providers_v1.0.pdf

     [19] https://ies-svn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/attachments/download/2178/DOC-7_ELISE_D2.1.1_Spatial_Data_on_the_Web_tools_and_guidance_for_data_providers_v1.0.pdf

   [Clemens reads through document parts that best practices
   impacted]

   ClemensPortele: People seem more interested at looking at the
   best practices than at looking at RDF vocabularies. That's my
   impression at least.
   … There will be two webinars next week on spatial data and
   INSPIRE. Tuesday and Thursday. The one on Tuesday is about the
   document I just mentioned.
   … Preparation for the April meeting, open to the public.
   … The second one is focused on user feedback.
   … How do we move forward with the metadata topic in INSPIRE.

   <ClemensPortele> [20]http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/events/
   2nd-webinar-spatial-data-web-and-inspire

     [20] http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/events/2nd-webinar-spatial-data-web-and-inspire

   MichaelGordon: Capturing practical examples of usage of best
   practices to help with promoting them.
   … I'll extract examples from the best practices document itself
   … I'll have a talk internally with our Geovation people.

   billroberts: I have good connections with ODI. They do these
   Friday lunch talks every couple of weeks. One of use could
   offer to go and give a talk about the best practices.
   … I can raise that with them.

   MichaelGordon: [going through list of actions to get examples]

   Jeremy: When you're talking to start-ups, you might tie that to
   what other web technologies they're using. Progressive Web
   applications, Web Components, etc.

   RobSmith: Possibly will give us some indication of what they
   see coming next.

   Jeremy: OK, some concrete activity going on there.
   … Based on the participation in the group, we have a strong
   European perspective. Through testbed 14, USGS.
   … That's two different regions. We don't have anything in Asia.
   We don't have something specific in Australia.

   billroberts: Lots of interesting things going in New Zealand.
   Quite some interest in OGC members in New Zealand.

   ClemensPortele: We may need to talk to Jo about it.

   MichaelGordon: Will do.

   Francois: Museum on the Web CG might be a place where we could
   be promote best practices. Originates from Chinese community.
   … Also got contacted by the Samvera project, more US-based,
   university libraries.

   [short coffee break]

Purpose and operation of SDW IG

   JTandy: understand the function of the group, bridge between
   W3C and OGC, incubation of ideas and progression to standards
   agencies

   JTandy: first thing on agenda, understanding purpose of group

   <tidoust> [21]SDW IG Charter

     [21] https://www.w3.org/2017/sdwig/charter.html

   JTandy: set up as interest group, does not make standards
   … which means we need to know where to direct things to become
   standards
   … functions as bridge between w3c and ogc for issues around
   spatial data
   … from perspective w3c and ogc areas what are the key areas you
   think we need to look at

   Tidoust: W3C - understand what we need to do next for you, what
   standards, best practices etc need to be looked at
   … we see spatial data as important topic because it touches on
   some many domains, and another dimension to convergence on web.
   For example AR / VR
   … what's next from a standardisation perspective

   ScottSimmons: From an OGC perspective, we have some fairly
   fundamental changes in how we're approaching developing
   standards because of this group
   … critically important that BP contribute to OGC standards
   … as an interest group, we can coordinate joint work items
   … in past recommendations didn't progress through OGC. This
   structure will alleviate that problem and help align projects

   JTandy: to summarise - w3c which things need to be spun up next
   and where

   tidoust: which standards make sense to be developed by w3c or
   ogc

   JTandy: role of IG is to flush things out and act as a
   gatekeeper to ensure things that are ready go to the right
   place and to say that things that aren't ready need to develop
   more and how

   RobSmith: that's my interest, that's how / why I approached

   JTandy: summarising - from ogc perspective, make sure that ogc
   standards fit within the web. There's an activity to say that a
   problem raised by OGC is wider. Also a focus on spatial for W3C
   and contibute that
   … contrasting with a working group, IG allows us to direct work
   in various ways. From my perspective this group is important as
   provides oppurtunity to support OGC and W3C members who want to
   publish spatial data on the web

   Brinkwoman: Question - suppose we do this, assess whether
   topics are ready to go to a standards track - OGC, W3C or both
   jointly - will OGC or W3C listen to us?

   tidoust: this has been set up to allow this, and part of the
   triage process is to understand whether there is enough support
   for a direction, charters then would have to be drafted and
   ratified by W3C or OGC which would need to be passed by
   relevant governance
   … lots of details which will need to be assessed by a case by
   case basis but we are positive about this

   ScottSimmons: OGC membership has for 20 years had ISO as
   relationship but latest revision to Policies and Procedures
   opens that up to other organisations including W3C, because we
   understand that other communities are important and valuable

   tidoust: W3C - currently 5% of membership (20/30 members) would
   be required to vote yes to approve a new group etc
   … usually people won't vote if it's not their domain. Only
   objections if they are interested and don't like it. But 20
   organisations is not that easy still.

   Jtandy: How much time do we take in looking at potential
   standards activity? Given we have two group represented today -
   stats and BPs plus another possible.

   BillRoberts: Currently stats not likely to need a working
   group, non-normative note likely but possible that work like
   datacube work might need to progress to standards work

   ChrisLittle: another possible outocme is to provide some
   possible concrete examples that could be attached to best
   practices

   tidoust: Not seeing either Stats or Spatial BPs needing
   standards tracks - more an activity of triaging outside ideas
   to see if there's enough weight behind them, if they're
   developed enough, direct them as needed. So more likely that
   standards activity will come from outside (other than possibly
   from identified BP gaps area)

   ClemensPortele: From a spatial BP perspective, will need to
   have a mechanism to update the note, but an interest group can
   do that - a note is good enough, no burning need to push up to
   normative recommendation. Therefore spatial BP updates are a
   low maintenance - mainly update to including more examples and
   look at gaps as appropriate
   … personally I see this group in preparing something and full
   IG to approve changes

   JTandy: so other than outside activity triages to rec tracks or
   advise them, you (Clemens, Bill) see purpose of group as
   updating / publishing BP note / discussion paper as need

   BillRoberts: I see that we could make it clear to outside world
   that part of our role is the triaging role - however we have
   success already - Rob here and two others tomorrow so already
   showing that it could be a valuable one

   jidoust: Can give examples of how we could triage and tell the
   world how we're doing it

   JTandy: we can move to proposal for triage process now, if that
   suits?

   <tidoust> [22]Strategy funnel description

  https://github.com/w3c/strategy#strategy

   +1s from everyone

   tidoust: strategy team at w3c are trying to follow funnel
   approach - assess where they are on way to standardisation

   tidoust: first stage is exploration - an idea. 2) investigation
   - who is interested, has it been shared, do we need to incubate
   it somewhere 3) incubate - spec and use cases to identify gaps
   and refine
   … do we have a technical solution that could work
   … 4) evaluation does this have everything it needs 5) charter -
   draft charter and which body it should go to
   … ideas we will evaluate will be at different levels of
   maturity and we don't need to push it to charter right away
   … evaluation will look at things like (from w3c side) - do we
   have the right participants, do we have an ecosystem around it,
   will it add value to the web etc

   <tidoust> [23]Strategy funnel

     [23] https://github.com/w3c/strategy/projects/2

   tidoust: that's the process I had in mind for IG - currently
   w3c use the project view in github, internally it works but
   externally it might not make sense
   … tried many ways for groups to advertise what they're working
   on or their vision (vision docs), use cases and requirements
   (good for concrete work but takes a lot of time, updates etc)

   <tidoust> [24]Mobile roadmaps

     [24] https://w3c.github.io/web-roadmaps/mobile/

   tidoust: so trying to balance it we're trying roadmaps
   … visual doc, not a spec, trying to list different technologies
   and where there are standards, working groups, inncubated
   somewhere or technical gaps
   … first one shows set of roadmaps for areas, then each area
   shows these different techs
   … maintenance is quite easy as you can work on each area and
   show groups of technologies and timeline
   … tidoust happy to help
   … good document to advertise the vision that the IG is
   considering to the outside world

   <tidoust> [25]WG Charter template

     [25] https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/charter-template.html

   tidoust: final document that IG might have to deal with from
   w3c perspective is charters for new working groups if one topic
   is mature enough to go to standardisation
   … so from w3c side these are tools IG has, can be as simple of
   github issues and tracking as project, roadmap or indeed
   drafting charter at end (but unlikely to be main work)

   jtandy: so essentially roadmap and funnel / project view,
   provide a visible mechanism to show people what we are working
   on
   … question - talked about work from bp notes etc - how does
   that work fit into funnel?

   tidoust: wouldn't really fit into funnel - ideas only on way to
   standards track - bps have already gone through this so don't
   really fit in the funnel, Stats BP could appear in there as
   don't exist yet

   BillRoberts: whole IG went through funnel

   tidoust: funnel is mainly for new ideas, roadmap however is
   there for ideas already done and underway so could fit in
   existing WG / IG deliverables

   jtandy: so we would not expect to see all work on funnel but
   would on roadmap

   brinkwoman: would it make sense to make our own funnel?

   tidoust: it's a way to organise some items - works for some but
   not for others

   brinkwoman: could see it helping us, but perhaps things we're
   discussing should go to w3c strategy funnel?

   tidoust: existing question for strategy funnel - do we take
   ideas from all groups or select them? Don't know but could as
   IG could decide to utilise strategy funnel though might be
   messy as ideas mixed with other groups

   brinkwoman: could just tag them. If we just create our own then
   it would be less visible than strategy funnel

   tidoust: one of problems is maintaining that strategy funnel so
   it would actually help
   … strategy team maintain funnel so could theorectically drop
   items from it

   brinkwoman: we might need to decide it's ogc

   tidoust: at which point it could be dropped off

   <ScottSimmons> [26]https://github.com/opengeospatial/
   OGC-Technology-Trends

     [26] https://github.com/opengeospatial/OGC-Technology-Trends

   ScottSimmons: if you show me your funnel, i'll show you
   mine....maintained by George Percivall. Might be a good action
   for group to take to review both funnel and tech trends from
   w3c and ogc and identify common areas of interest

   tidoust: one of the hardest things is maintaining the funnel

   RobSmith: what happens to things that drop out of the funnel?

   tidoust: these are issues that are closed in github so can be
   tracked

   jtandy: also a parking lot area - where ideas go to die?

   robsmith: groups could come back with an idea that was looked
   at several years ago

   tidoust: and that's why all the ideas are tracked even whilst
   closed

   jtandy: can see where roadmap is useful for showing work that
   already exists and work underway. In terms of a funnel, can see
   value in IG maintaining it's own funnel - as work might go to
   w3c or ogc...also might have less phases

   tidoust: can investigate internally whether strategy team are
   happy with IG using strategy funnel and filter it on issues

   robsmith: allows ideas to exist in multiple streams and groups

   tidoust: likes idea of reusing strategy funnel as other groups
   would then see SDW IG ideas

   robsmith: also saves duplication of effort

   tidoust: should I look into this or should it be seperate?

   jtandy: can see it both ways, now have seen tags and bring out
   only those, that is useful and benefit of not having ideas in
   multiple places. It might be a bit complicated but it's just a
   ticket being moved. Scott - if we put things on the w3c
   strategy funnel and we move things to the ogc space, we could
   put them in the strategy work concluded and put an ogc tag on
   that?
   ... liked idea to have regular action to look at w3c funnel and
   ogc tech trends, what's your (scott) thoughts on using w3c
   infrastructure for this?

   ScottSimmons: its the better tool for this

   tidoust: there may be practical issues that stop this -
   assignment issues - but could just assign them to tidoust to
   track

   jtandy: as staff contact that does make sense
   … looking at one at random, the level of info is relatively low
   and easy to work with

   tidoust: main difficulty is maintentance, and occasionally
   topics can be sensitive

   jtandy: three proposals so vote

   <tidoust> PROPOSED: The SDW IG will regularly the OGC trends
   and W3C funnel for common threads

   ChrisLittle: how frequent?

   ClemensPortele: Every face to face? a bit more time to discuss

   Billrobe_: and what do we do with it then? recommend additions
   to funnel? progressing and assessing?

   RobSmith: would there be actions then?

   jtandy: identify something that's common, there's a piece of
   work that's out there?
   … looking at work coming through ogc and w3c - w3c side tagging
   the ticket then saying why it's of interest to us, if it's ogc
   then adding a new ticket?

   ScottSimmons: +1 ideally cross reference organisation lists, on
   ogc side, george would listen to group, appropriately reference
   and ensure dialoge

   <tidoust> PROPOSED: The SDW IG will regularly review the OGC
   trends and W3C funnel for common threads during F2F meetings
   with a view to tracking progress and identifying new topics of
   interest for the W3C funnel

   jtandy: outcome is that we've flagged that we're tracking the
   item

   <jtandy> +1

   <ClemensPortele> +1

   <MichaelGordon> +1

   <ChrisLittle> +1

   <brinkwoman> +1

   <tidoust> +1

   <billrobe_> +1

   <ScottSimmons> +1

   <RobSmith> +1

   <jtandy> +0

   <jtandy> +1

   Resolved: The SDW IG will regularly review the OGC trends and
   W3C funnel for common threads during F2F meetings with a view
   to tracking progress and identifying new topics of interest for
   the W3C funnel

   <tidoust> PROPOSED: The SDW IG will have a monthly review of
   the SDW tagged item in the W3C funnel (during plenary calls)

   <jtandy> +1

   <tidoust> +1

   <brinkwoman> +1

   <ScottSimmons> +1

   <MichaelGordon> +1

   <RobSmith> +1

   <ClemensPortele> +1

   <billrobe_> +1

   <ChrisLittle> +1

   Resolved: The SDW IG will have a monthly review of the SDW
   tagged item in the W3C funnel (during plenary calls)

   <tidoust> PROPOSED: Pending agreement from W3C strategy team,
   the SDW IG will use the W3C strategy funnel to monitor relevant
   concepts and ideas tagged with an "sdw" tag, to be managed by
   the w3c staff contact

   <brinkwoman> +1

   <jtandy> +1

   <ScottSimmons> +1

   <RobSmith> +1

   <tidoust> +1

   <MichaelGordon> +1

   <billrobe_> +1

   <ClemensPortele> +1

   <ChrisLittle> +1

   <tidoust> PROPOSED: Pending agreement from W3C strategy team,
   the SDW IG will use the W3C strategy funnel to monitor relevant
   concepts and ideas tagged with an "geospatial" tag, to be
   managed by the w3c staff contact (actual tag name might need to
   be adjusted)

   <MichaelGordon> +1

   <jtandy> +1

   <tidoust> +1

   <ClemensPortele> +1

   <ScottSimmons> +1

   <billrobe_> +1

   <brinkwoman> +1

   Resolved: Pending agreement from W3C strategy team, the SDW IG
   will use the W3C strategy funnel to monitor relevant concepts
   and ideas tagged with an "geospatial" tag, to be managed by the
   w3c staff contact (actual tag name might need to be adjusted)

   <ChrisLittle> +1

   Action: François to check with W3C strategy team whether the
   SDW IG can reuse the Strategy funnel

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-381 - Check with w3c strategy team
   whether the sdw ig can reuse the strategy funnel [on François
   Daoust - due 2018-02-26].

   <tidoust> PROPOSED: The SDW IG will develop and maintain a
   Spatial Data on the Web roadmap with initial draft ready for
   next F2F. Linda to act as main editor with help from François

   <jtandy> +1

   <billrobe_> +1

   <ScottSimmons> +1

   <brinkwoman> +1

   <MichaelGordon> +1

   <RobSmith> +1

   <ClemensPortele> +1

   <tidoust> +1

   <ChrisLittle> +1

   Resolved: The SDW IG will develop and maintain a Spatial Data
   on the Web roadmap with initial draft ready for next F2F. Linda
   to act as main editor with help from François

   jtandy: How will we decide whether something goes to w3c or
   ogc?

   tidoust: membership is one criteria, expertise might be another
   … and where we think the work should happen data exchange might
   be a example

   ChrisLittle: what if we think the work should go to another
   organisation? OASIS for example

   RobSmith: would it not just be that we've tagged the work and
   can then direct any questions there?

   jtandy: so if it was in the work concluded column and then
   tagged "ietf" etc.
   … so criterion - 1) membership 2) do we think this is specially
   spatial therefore OGC thing, noting what ScottSimmons said
   earlier that this group helps focus spatial into the wider web
   and OGC curates that work. Scott do you have any thoughts?

   ScottSimmons: not sure about curate...
   … maybe this group is best suited to recommend possible or best
   homes..curate might be strong word
   … also think that we should focus on items that would likely go
   to w3c, ogc or both

   jtandy: think that what you're saying is obvious criterion is
   that support coming from ogc or w3c then obvious where it goes.
   If not then we'd debate with TC at OGC and on w3c....

   tidoust: w3c management first for review
   … criteria will be reviewed on case by case basis and
   organisations scope might affect this as well, however not sure
   of objective criteria to decide that

   robsmith: could also be something that neither want

   <ScottSimmons> looks like the room hung up the phone

   <brinkwoman> sorry we got cut off

   <brinkwoman> re-dialing

   jtandy: so tidoust internal review goes through w3m internally
   first

   tidoust: correct and evaluate whether it makes sense and share
   it wider with advisory committee

   jtandy: triggers thought that on ogc side we said TC but that
   is wider group. Would it be OAB or PC or something else?

   ScottSimmons: best for joint new work then best to go to whole
   TC, updating pipeline and moving stuff through funnel then OAB

   jtandy: candidate work item fits in OGC - TC, within W3C then
   W3M for review and only charter for membership?

   tidoust: normally would draft charter that would go to W3M

   tidoust: for joint work would expect that Scott and I would
   review it before taking it to relevant groups

   jtandy: for W3C then membership at the end, but case by case to
   decide where it should go, some internal review and then take
   it to relevant groups

   <ChrisLittle> +1 to blah blah

   tidoust: forgot a step - we do send a notice to AC to say we
   are thinking about doing something - working on this draft
   charter etc
   … before W3M approval
   … then go back to W3M and then AC when draft charter is ready

   tidoust: not sure the process needs to be resolved - when you
   are going to work on a W3C WG draft charter you will send a
   notice anyway, likely to be on a case by case basis and the
   process question will not really be a major one to solve

   jtandy: ok lets not tie ourselves in knots on process

   jtandy: moving items through pipeline will be reviewed by OGC
   OAB

   <tidoust> PROPOSED: The SDW IG will inform the OGC Architecture
   Board when it moves an item forward in the funnel

   brinkwoman: is informed a better word?

   ScottSimmons: yes

   <jtandy> +1

   <brinkwoman> +1

   <MichaelGordon> +1

   <RobSmith> +1

   <tidoust> +1

   <ClemensPortele> +1

   <ScottSimmons> +1

   <ChrisLittle> +1

   Resolved: The SDW IG will inform the OGC Architecture Board
   when it moves an item forward in the funnel

   jtandy: so the only area we haven't discussed is community
   engagement? But happy that the areas being worked on are doing
   this themselves

   brinkwoman: and that this would be a criteria for new work

   tidoust: and we can discuss who is missing from this table for
   any new work to make this more applicable to the wider world

   robsmith: which is why I was keen to get involved here, would
   be hard pressed to miss someone once you've got that community

   jtandy: think what I think I'm hearing is that this group is
   set up with mandate from w3c and ogc to recommend when
   something should move forward? If people want to bring that
   forward they can get involved and as more stuff gets involved
   then this will be a self generating process

   robsmith: and if someone complains about not being included
   they can be invited in

   brinkwoman: so should be arrange some time at next OGC TC to
   tell members we are working this way?

   jtandy: yes absolutely

   brinkwoman: feel like it should be action for someone to
   arrange some time at OGC TC

   ScottSimmons: 4 weeks from today

   jtandy: are we then asking for some time to speak in the TC
   plenary to inform people on how we are progressing

   jtandy: scott, can we ask for 5 mins in opening plenary?

   ScottSimmons: already got this on the list

   jtandy: drafting some slides

   Action: brinkwoman to draft 2 slides for OGC Orleans TC opening
   plenary

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-382 - Draft 2 slides for ogc orleans
   tc opening plenary [on Linda van den Brink - due 2018-02-26].

   jtandy: AOB?

   ScottSimmons: nothing from me, dialing in tomorrow

   ChrisLittle: thanks to brinkwoman for hosting

   <brinkwoman> [27]Stroopwafel

     [27] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroopwafel

   <ChrisLittle> bye
Received on Monday, 19 February 2018 17:21:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 19 February 2018 17:21:25 UTC