Re: Recap Toulouse face to face

On 12/23/19 1:18 AM, Linda van den Brink wrote:
> Hi all,
> Probably everyone is on holiday now, but I'll just send you my thoughts.
> I don't feel the need to do a call for consensus, since we had the face to face and since then we've had some feedback via github (which has triggered some minor updates), ergo enough exposure.
> However I'm wondering about two things:
> 1) the plan to publish this extension in the main ssn namespace., do you have any new input on this?
> 2) (longer term) if we start treating SOSA/SSN as an evergreen standard, we need to figure out how this relates to the OGC standards process, where something like that doesn't exist (yet).

Just my 50cent: I am not so sure how I feel about the idea of turning 
SOSA/SSN  into an evergreen standards. How will consensus be established 
long-term? How will we show buy-in? And most importantly, how do we 
prevent fatigue-based effects that may render a once common vision into 
one lead by those that are simply able to invest more time?

[Aside of what has been written here:]

Happy holidays,


> Linda
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Ted Guild <>
> Verzonden: maandag 9 december 2019 18:57
> Aan: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <>; Linda van den Brink <>;; Tandy, Jeremy <>
> Onderwerp: Re: Recap Toulouse face to face
> Hi Simon,
> As it was previously a [First Public] Working Draft I requested permission to publish it as a Working Draft. Some prefer WD to Notes as having more weight as a specification although that is a matter of perception. I spoke with Philippe Le Hegaret with his Director hat on and he is inclined, awaiting email confirmation.
> I viewed the support for the updates presented at the face to face as approval but Linda or Jeremy may wish to formalize with a call for consensus. That can be done simply as an email to this list with a deadline, typically five business days as I recall, to voice objection.
> On Sun, 2019-12-08 at 22:00 +0000, Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) wrote:
>> Draft of SSN-EXT is here:
>> I would like this to be issued ASAP as a new PWD, replacing
>> which was published a year ago
>> now.
>> How do we initiate a vote to allow this?
>> IMO it is pretty close to done now, so after responding to comments in
>> response to PWD, I would then like to look towards this being issued
>> by this IG as a W3C Note / OGC Discussion Paper.
>> Simon
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ted Guild <>
>> Sent: Saturday, 7 December, 2019 00:03
>> To: Linda van den Brink <>;
>>; Tandy, Jeremy <>
>> Subject: Re: Recap Toulouse face to face
>> Minutes are online, corrections welcome. In particular need link for
>> Rob's slides and and issue he mentioned on github and a project Esa
>> mentioned, look for @@ for context.
>> On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 10:09 +0000, Linda van den Brink wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> Here’s a short recap of the face to face meeting we had in Toulouse
>>> at the OGC TC.
>>> SSN extension
>>> Simon Cox presented the latest Editor’s draft of the SSN Extensions
>>> document [1]. The idea is to publish a new WD of this document
>>> (which is intended to be a W3C Note / OGC Discussion paper). He has
>>> asked the group for review [2] Ted Guild will help navigate this
>>> through the process once the group agrees to publish this as a new
>>> WD. The new ‘evergreen’ standards process of W3C may be applicable.
>>> WebVMT
>>> Rob Smith gave an update on the WebVMT work. It’s still in
>>> incubation phase, partly within the Web Platform Incubator Community
>>> Group.
>>> Contact with browser developers has been initiated, revealing that
>>> there has been previous work on video geotagging but at the time no
>>> consensus was reached. There seems to be some interest in doing this
>>> now.
>>> MapML
>>> The community around MapML is slowly developing; Peter Rushforth did
>>> some community building at TPAC this year and talked to browser
>>> developers from Agalia, Beaucoup, Firefox, Chrome. There is also a
>>> draft use cases & requirements document [3]. On the OGC side MapML
>>> is being worked on in testbed 15. Peter and Ted will look into
>>> organizing a W3C workshop on maps in HTML.
>>> Discussion on charter
>>> The general feeling about the proposed charter is positive; those
>>> present agreed we should move this charter forward. There were some
>>> pointers to improve the text. The chairs will transfer the charter
>>> text to the right template and further improve the text. When
>>> rechartering we may want to think about promoting the group some, in
>>> order to remind the W3C and OGC membership what we’re doing.
>>> Linked building data
>>> Mathias Bonduel and others from the Linked building data community
>>> group joined to present their work. They are working on ontologies
>>> for linked building data, collecting use cases, requirements,
>>> developing best practices and ontologies, in the future planning to
>>> evolve to a W3C WG. They are contacting the SDWIG to see if OGC can
>>> help with their use cases related to geometry and topology. This
>>> turns out to be related to the OWL Space / GeoSPARQL 2.0 work,
>>> currently discussed in the OGC Geosemantics working group, which
>>> they were invited to join.
>>> Another potentially interesting OGC standard is IndoorGML which
>>> describes topology of buildings.
>>> SDW Finland
>>> Esa Tiainen presented remotely [4] on low hanging fruit and how to
>>> move forward with spatial data on the web.
>>> OGC technology trends
>>> George Percivall presented the tech trends [5] OGC has their eye on
>>> and asks the group if there are more trends to record within the
>>> spatial web data trend group.
>>> [1]:
>>> [2]:
>>> [3]:
>>> [4]:
>>> sa-tiainen.pdf
>>> [5]:
>>> s-for-SDWIG.pdf
>> --
>> Ted Guild <>
>> W3C Automotive Lead
> --
> Ted Guild <>
> W3C Automotive Lead

Krzysztof Janowicz

Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060

Semantic Web Journal:

Received on Monday, 23 December 2019 18:12:14 UTC