RE: Report from OGC meeting

Linda,
I’ll add my thanks to this useful summary. I was also at OGC TC, at least from midday Tuesday – but there are a lot of parallel meetings, and I don’t think we overlapped much.

Regarding GeoDCAT, two separate proposals were brought to the Technical Committee, although I do think that could have been made clearer:


  1.  A formal motion to accept a paper that OGC have produced, called “GeoDCAT-AP Best Practice”. This is an OGC paper providing advice to people using GeoDCAT-AP in the context of an OGC Catalogue Server (e.g. an INSPIRE Download service). This was agreed in the room, and will proceed to an electronic vote of OGC members, then (most likely) to publication as an OGC Best Practice
  2.  A suggestion to adopt GeoDCAT-AP as a community standard. “Community standard” is an OGC mechanism for recognising external standards developed in other communities, that can be used with OGC standards. See http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/community - it’s quite a new status, so there aren’t many examples yet. This would not result in any development occurring at OGC – at the most, OGC would add a cover page explaining how it fits in to the OGC standard baseline. Future development would be left with the current authors (JRC etc). I don’t recall this being formally voted on; just that the “Metadata & Catalogue Domain Working Group” brought the idea to the attention of the wider technical committee, and presumably will proceed with it – i.e. bring a proposal for vote. (but I missed the actual DWG, due to snow in the UK).

Hope that helps

Peter Parslow
Open Standards Lead
Adanac Drive, Southampton, United Kingdom, SO16 0AS
T: +44 (0)2380 055341 | M: +44 (0)7796 610020
www.os.uk<http://os.uk/> | peter.parslow@os.uk<mailto:peter.parslow@os.uk>

From: Bill Roberts [mailto:bill@swirrl.com]
Sent: 26 March 2018 08:59
To: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
Cc: public-sdwig@w3.org
Subject: 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<mailto: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

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



This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person.

Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve the right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Ordnance Survey Limited (Company Registration number 09121572)
Registered Office: Explorer House
Adanac Drive
Southampton SO16 0AS
Tel: 03456 050505
http://www.os.uk