W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdwig@w3.org > July 2019

RE: Rechartering the SDW-IG after December 2019

From: Rushforth, Peter (NRCan/RNCan) <peter.rushforth@canada.ca>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:38:55 +0000
To: "Tandy, Jeremy" <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>
CC: "public-sdwig@w3.org" <public-sdwig@w3.org>, Scott Simmons <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>, "ted@w3.org" <ted@w3.org>, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
Message-ID: <E1ho6d1-0000nL-0B@titan.w3.org>
Hi Jeremy,

Thanks for incorporating that idea.  Looks good!

Cheers,
Peter


Peter Rushforth

Technology Advisor
Canada Centre for Mapping and Earth Observation 
Natural Resources Canada / Government of Canada
peter.rushforth@canada.ca / Tel: 613-759-7915

Conseiller technique
Centre canadien de cartographie et d'observation de la Terre 
Ressources naturelles Canada / Gouvernement du Canada
peter.rushforth@canada.ca / TÚl: 613-759-7915


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tandy, Jeremy <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>
> Sent: July 18, 2019 7:36 AM
> To: Rushforth, Peter (NRCan/RNCan) <peter.rushforth@canada.ca>; Linda
> van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
> Cc: public-sdwig@w3.org; Scott Simmons <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>;
> Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>; ted@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Rechartering the SDW-IG after December 2019
> 
> Hi Peter - thanks for your feedback and comments.
> 
> I think that the proposed terms of reference would cover the sharing of
> information on complementary strengths. Your suggestion is to make that a
> little more explicit.
> 
> I've updated the proposed terms of reference to reflect your comment: see
> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/rechartering.md and
> particularly
> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/commit/a454b877e52018aa1480140d464e681
> e9cfe80cd#diff-4667e319ac80d9779de9b13ad3efcc4e for the commit with
> the change.
> 
> How information about complementary strengths is shared is a little unclear.
> But I think that engagement with the W3C TAG / OAB and through the staff
> contacts would be a good start:
> 
> > respond requests from OGC Architecture Board (OAB) and W3C Technical
> Architecture Group (TAG) to review materials relating to geospatial Web
> standards, and bring relevant matters to the attention of the OAB and TAG -
> [possibly via a quarterly slot on their agendas?].
> > ...
> > SDW-IG will have a designated staff contact from both OGC and W3C.
> 
> Have I captured the essence of your feedback?
> 
> Thanks, Jeremy
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rushforth, Peter (NRCan/RNCan) <peter.rushforth@canada.ca>
> Sent: 17 July 2019 15:22
> To: Tandy, Jeremy <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>; Linda van den Brink
> <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
> Cc: public-sdwig@w3.org; Scott Simmons <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>;
> Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>; ted@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Rechartering the SDW-IG after December 2019
> 
> Hi Jeremy and Linda,
> 
> Looks good to me.   On the other hand, I have comments. :-)
> 
> > what should it's terms of reference
> > be?
> 
> In my mind, the SDWIG has always been about the webification of OGC
> standards and the spatialization of Web standards.  But perhaps that's too
> ambitious at the moment.
> 
> We have been focusing on individual standards developments, whereas I
> think SDWIG provides a good opportunity to talk about aspects of standards
> and standards development that relate to both organizations. Thinking about
> the strengths that the two organizations bring to the SWDIG, perhaps we can
> still craft a re-chartering to leverage complementary strengths and hence
> provide advice to both.
> 
> W3C: Web scale architecture (domain independence), accessibility, privacy,
> internationalization, performance, intersecting WHATWG / W3C
> membership, Community Groups program, ...
> 
> OGC: geospatial domain experts and expertise, crowdfunding / Innovation
> program, stable usable standards that are widely implemented, intersecting
> global SDI-Open Data / OGC membership ...
> 
> I think growing and improving the list of strengths of the other side should be
> in scope, through the activities and advice of the SDIWG.
> 
> Two meetings per year is appropriate, especially including  one at an OGC
> venue and one at TPAC, I think.
> 
> Thanks for asking.
> 
> Cheers,
> Peter
> 
> 
> Peter Rushforth
> 
> Technology Advisor
> Canada Centre for Mapping and Earth Observation Natural Resources
> Canada / Government of Canada peter.rushforth@canada.ca / Tel: 613-759-
> 7915
> 
> Conseiller technique
> Centre canadien de cartographie et d'observation de la Terre Ressources
> naturelles Canada / Gouvernement du Canada peter.rushforth@canada.ca /
> TÚl: 613-759-7915
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tandy, Jeremy <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>
> > Sent: July 12, 2019 6:57 AM
> > To: public-sdwig@w3.org; Linda van den Brink
> > <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>; Scott Simmons
> > <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>; Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>;
> > ted@w3.org
> > Subject: Rechartering the SDW-IG after December 2019
> >
> > Hello SDW-IG folks...
> >
> > The Spatial Data on the Web Interest Group will expire on 31-Dec-2019 as
> > per its Charter [1]
> >
> > There positive impact of collaboration between OGC and W3C is well
> > recognised. The SDW-IG has been successful over the last 2-years in
> > coordinating between OGC and W3C, and connecting people with potential
> > collaborators and stakeholders. However, experience shows that work
> items
> > of the SDW-IG largely remain "one-task, one-person". Other than review,
> > there has been very limited group-interaction on work items. We conclude
> > that the format of SDW-IG isn't well suited to engage collaborators on work
> > items. Existing mechanisms are available to generate critical mass to
> develop
> > proposals and contribute to work items: W3C has Community Groups
> (which
> > require a proposer plus 5 supporting members to establish); OGC has the
> > Innovation Programme and Domain Working Groups.
> >
> > Note that the policies of both OGC and W3C state that standards must be
> > developed within a Standards Working Group (SWG) specifically chartered
> > for that purpose. As such, the SDW-IG cannot develop standards itself;
> > instead it can support the development of a proposal to the point where a
> > Charter for a SWG is sufficiently mature and has adequate support.
> >
> > So - should SDW-IG continue and, if so, what should it's terms of reference
> > be? Linda and I have synthesised the conversation during the face-to-face
> > meeting in Leuven - here's what we heard (plus some sensible additions) ...
> >
> > We, as chairs of the SDW-IG, think the SDW-IG should be re-charted, and
> for
> > it to remain as a separate group (i.e. not merged into another groups such
> as
> > the OGC Geosemantics DWG). Draft terms of reference for the re-chartered
> > group are provided below.
> >
> > Please can we have feedback by end of July so that we can continue the
> > discussion and iterate toward a suitable new Charter?
> >
> > Many thanks and best regards, Jeremy & Linda.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > SDW-IG will:
> > * coordinate between OGC and W3C on shared interests (i.e. geospatial
> Web
> > standards) - monitoring and, where necessary, liaising between groups
> from
> > OGC and W3C.
> > * identify areas where standards should be developed jointly by both W3C
> > and OGC.
> > * respond requests from OGC Architecture Board (OAB) and W3C Technical
> > Architecture Group (TAG) to review materials relating to geospatial Web
> > standards, and bring relevant matters to the attention of the OAB and TAG
> -
> > [possibly via a quarterly slot on their agendas?].
> > * periodically review the OGC Innovation Programme ideas issue tracker [2]
> > to identify and prioritise important ideas relating to the geospatial Web
> > standards.
> > * periodically review the OGC Technology Trends [3].
> > * provide a forum where early ideas for geospatial Web standards can be
> > shared in an open, public forum (e.g. as a GitHub issue) until they migrate
> > into a Community Group, Domain Working Group or Testbed activity for
> > further development (see below).
> > * provide introductions between originators of ideas for geospatial Web
> > standards and potential collaborators and stakeholders in OGC and W3C.
> > * seek out existing forums (e.g. W3C Community Group, OGC Domain
> > Working Group, OGC Testbed / Innovation Programme) where ideas for
> > geospatial Web standards can be developed to the point where they are
> > mature enough to Charter a SWG; where no existing forums are a good fit,
> > SDW-IG will support establishment of the most appropriate forum in OGC
> or
> > W3C (development of the idea will occur within the designated group
> where
> > resources such as mailing lists and GitHub repositories will be provided).
> > * maintain references to the working resources of designated groups
> where
> > ideas for geospatial Web standards are being developed, and track
> progress
> > of development using the W3C's "strategy funnel" [4].
> > * provide support to develop SWG Charters and help determine whether
> the
> > SWG should reside in OGC or W3C, or be a joint SWG.
> > * manage errata for: Spatial Data on the Web Best Practices, Time
> Ontology,
> > SSN/SOSA Ontology, SSN/SOSA Extensions and any other documents
> > published by the SDW-WG and SDW-IG.
> >
> > SDW-IG will largely work by correspondence (e.g. via mailing list and
> GitHub
> > issues), complemented by face-to-face meetings (e.g. 2 per year?) and ad-
> > hoc teleconferences (e.g. to discuss / review new ideas for geospatial Web
> > standards).
> > SDW-IG can publish OGC Discussion Papers, OGC White Papers, OGC Best
> > Practices and W3C Notes - subject to the appropriate approvals processes.
> > SDW-IG will have a designated staff contact from both OGC and W3C.
> >
> > [1]: https://www.w3.org/2017/sdwig/charter.html
> > [2]: https://github.com/opengeospatial/ideas/issues
> > [3]: https://github.com/opengeospatial/OGC-Technology-
> > Trends/blob/master/README.md
> > [4]: https://github.com/w3c/strategy/labels/Geospatial
Received on Thursday, 18 July 2019 13:39:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:17:55 UTC