Re: Report from OGC meeting

Thanks Linda - sounds good!

I had a little bit of contact with Ian Coady (via Twitter) during the
Orleans workshop, around the idea of an OGC domain working group on
'statistics meets geospatial'.  I'll follow up with him on that and make
sure we know about what each other is doing

Cheers

Bill

On 26 March 2018 at 08:53, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I attended the OGC meeting in Orléans this week. This is a short report of
> things of interest to the IG.
>
>
>
>    - CityJSON was discussed in the CityGML standards working group (SWG).
>    The reactions were positive and there was no objection to the possibility
>    of a joint OGC/W3C working group for CityJSON (IGN, the French topographic
>    mapping agency supported this idea explicitly). The advantage of having web
>    expertise within the group was understood. CityGML SWG will consider
>    endorsing CityJSON as an alternative encoding.
>    - While W3C works on a new version of DCAT, GeoDCAT is being brought
>    forward for standardization at OGC. As I understand it this (having DCAT @
>    W3C, GeoDCAT @ OGC) was already discussed in the past. However the downside
>    of developing GeoDCAT solely at OGC is that the awareness of it within open
>    data and CKAN communities will be lower. Is there something we can do in
>    the SDWIG to address this, e.g. do some communication on W3C side as well?
>    - The ‘gap’ of conneg for spatial data / how to get a specific
>    representation of spatial data was mentioned by several people to me as
>    something still to be addressed.
>    - WFS 3.0 core is already drafted and has at least 4 implementations.
>    It is a topic in OGC testbed 14 and they just had a hackathon:
>    https://github.com/opengeospatial/wfs3hackathon
>    <https://github.com/opengeospatial/wfs3hackathon>
>    Other OGC services standards are expected to follow WFS 3.0 lead in
>    adopting SDWBP guidelines, but let the WFS 3.0 group work out the kinks
>    first. OGC members will also be working on a JSON best practice. On the
>    whole I see a nice evolution of OGC standards towards a more ‘webby’ flavor
>    occurring!
>    - I presented about the SDWIG, what we are currently doing including
>    the triaging process and the stats BP, in the opening plenary of the
>    technical committee, in the GeoSemantics, Statistics and MetOcean groups.
>       - GeoSemantics DWG asks the SDWIG to play a role in keeping OGC
>       members up to date on relevant developments at W3C. Perhaps we could make
>       this a recurring agenda point.
>       - There was an ad hoc meeting of Statistics people who are planning
>       to create a domain working group around this topic. I introduced our work
>       to them and we briefly discussed ways to cooperate. Outcome: have an ad hoc
>       joint session with them in Fort Collins to introduce them to the concepts
>       of spatial (and statistical) data on the web and to discuss overlap of our
>       groups and how we can cooperate. They were asking about the scope of the
>       stats BP.
>    - Rob Smith presented WebVMT in the Unmanned vehicles domain working
>    group. There was some useful feedback about standards that do geotagging
>    for video (already some of this feedback was sent to us via github) and
>    about possible patents that might be lurking out there. It was stressed
>    that there should be a very clear description of WebVMT (and other funnel
>    items) as to its goal and target audience as this would help determine its
>    sweet spot in the standardization landscape.
>
> Linda
>