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

RE: Review of OGC OpenAPI Guidelines

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 17:27:16 +0100
To: "'Tandy, Jeremy'" <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>, "'Little, Chris'" <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>, "'Linda van den Brink'" <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
Cc: <public-sdwig@w3.org>, <oab@lists.opengeospatial.org>
Message-ID: <017a01d4da82$c9a340b0$5ce9c210$@w3.org>
Hi Chris,

The SDWIG certainly makes sense as long as it exists. I do not know how to identify a permanent body at W3C that could undertake the annual review otherwise. The TAG (Technical Architecture Group) comes to mind otherwise both as a group that is permanent and as a group that performs spec reviews, but it should probably only be used as a fallback when there is no more specific group.

It is always possible to send a liaison statement to W3C and ask for feedback on a document, but that is unlikely to trigger actual feedback if there is no active group in that space.


> From: Tandy, Jeremy <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 2:33 PM
> Hi Chris- thank you for keeping us informed about this. The OAB proposal
> makes sense. I would just like to note that the charter of the SDW-IG expires
> in December 2019. Implication is that the exact body of the W3C that
> undertakes the annual review will need to be determined.
> Perhaps Francois has a thought on this?
> Jeremy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
> Sent: 13 March 2019 11:12
> To: Tandy, Jeremy <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>; Linda van den Brink
> (l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl) <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
> Cc: public-sdwig@w3.org; oab@lists.opengeospatial.org; tidoust@w3.org
> Subject: Review of OGC OpenAPI Guidelines
> Dear Jeremy and Linda,
> OGC has started planning a couple of 'hackathons' to gain implementation
> feedback on the next generation of their Web Services. The intent is to start
> from the successful WFS3.0 approach using OpenAPI as the framework, and
> see whether other OGC API initiatives can identify a common core of generic
> services.
> To this end, a set of OGC OpenAPI Guidelines have been written, and  will
> evolve. Hopefully they will be stable enough by the end of 2019 to become
> OGC Policy.
> To ensure that the guidelines, and the OGC APIs, does not diverge from best
> practices in other domains, the OGC Architecture Board requests that the
> SDWIG review the guidelines towards the end of this year when feedback
> from the hackathons and other activities have been incorporated. It is
> envisaged that ongoing reviews, say annually, would be useful in keeping the
> Guidelines and Policy relevant, but it may not be the SDWIG that does this. It
> was recognised by the Board that the W3C is currently the most appropriate
> standards development organisation to do this review.
> The OAB is aware that members of the SDWIG have already considered an
> early version of the Guidelines. Confirmation that SDWIG could conduct
> another review would be helpful.
> Chris
> Chris Little BA, MSc, FRMetS, MBCS
> Chair, OGC Meteorology & Oceanography Domain Working Group Chair, OGC
> Temporal DWG Member, OGC Architecture Board
> IT Fellow - Operational Infrastructures
> Met Office  FitzRoy Road  Exeter  Devon  EX1 3PB  United Kingdom
> Tel: +44(0)1392 886278  Fax: +44(0)1392 885681  Mobile: +44(0)7753 880514
> E-mail: chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk  http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2019 16:27:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:01 UTC