W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdwig@w3.org > April 2020

RE: Review: New charter

From: Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 15:49:32 +0000
To: Tom Kralidis <tomkralidis@gmail.com>, "Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton)" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
CC: "ted@w3.org" <ted@w3.org>, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, "public-sdwig@w3.org" <public-sdwig@w3.org>, "Tandy, Jeremy" <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>
Message-ID: <CWXP265MB0053C5D22B3FD659318B60E0A7C60@CWXP265MB0053.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Tom

CoverageJSON is meant to be an active item for standardisation in OGC, but held up by my lack of bandwidth.

So far we have a pristine public repo at https://github.com/opengeospatial/CoverageJSON with Jon Blower's original content.

It is meant to progress via the WCS SWG. Backup plan is back out of the WCS SWG and establish a separate, format orientated SWG like for NetCDF, DGGS, HDF.

Chris 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Kralidis <tomkralidis@gmail.com> 
Sent: 02 April 2020 00:51
To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
Cc: ted@w3.org; Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>; Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>; public-sdwig@w3.org; Tandy, Jeremy <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>
Subject: Re: Review: New charter

In addition, is/will CoverageJSON continue to be on the table as per [1]?

..Tom

[1] https://www.w3.org/2017/sdwig/


On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 7:43 PM Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:
>
> Is a GeoSPARQL refresh on the agenda?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
> Sent: Thursday, 2 April, 2020 01:32
> To: Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>; Linda van den Brink 
> <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>; public-sdwig@w3.org
> Cc: Tandy, Jeremy <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>
> Subject: Re: Review: New charter
>
> On Wed, 2020-04-01 at 10:12 +0000, Little, Chris wrote:
> > Linda, Ted,
> >
> > Would a global change,  'Interest' -> 'Working', plus a few grammar 
> > tweaks, do it?
>
> Mostly, I think some of the wording is too exploratory and Interest Group like whereas Working Groups are more focused on set of deliverables.
>
> We have a six month extension for the Interest Group. We may be working with OGC and others on a routing ontology and would like to see if that gets going and should be included in Working Group charter as a concrete spec for W3C Recommendations Track. Also I hope in May AC meeting we will have a clear answer on Ever-teal (evergreen) specifications at W3C that demonstrate maturity but are expected to receive ongoing modifications as that makes sense for ontology work.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> > From: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
> > Sent: 01 April 2020 09:13
> > To: ted@w3.org; public-sdwig@w3.org
> > Cc: Tandy, Jeremy <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>
> > Subject: RE: Review: New charter
> >
> > I would prefer that!
> >
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > Van: Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
> > Verzonden: dinsdag 31 maart 2020 14:36
> > Aan: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>; 
> > public-sdwig@w3.org
> > CC: Jeremy Tandy (jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk) < 
> > jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>
> > Onderwerp: Re: Review: New charter
> >
> > It can pursue other interests and recharter if those mature for 
> > formal standards development.
> >
> > On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 06:39 +0000, Linda van den Brink wrote:
> > > I think it does make sense. The SSN and OWL-Time errata and 
> > > extensions are better at home in a WG, at least.
> > >
> > > I'm hesitant to have an IG as well, running two groups might mean 
> > > more overhead... Couldn't the WG be scoped to manage the other 
> > > interests as well, besides the concrete deliverables?
> > >
> > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > > Van: Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
> > > Verzonden: maandag 30 maart 2020 17:15
> > > Aan: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>; 
> > > public-sdwig@w3.org
> > > CC: Jeremy Tandy (jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk) < 
> > > jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>
> > > Onderwerp: Re: Review: New charter
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > W3C Management is encouraging us to draft a charter for a Working 
> > > Group given the amount of work on REC track. A question is whether 
> > > to also have an Interest Group given the number of well, interests 
> > > besides what we can presently list as deliverables.
> > >
> > > What are others' thoughts?
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2020-03-12 at 12:59 +0000, Linda van den Brink wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I updated the charter today (finally…) and resolved all the 
> > > > comments.
> > > >
> > > > I believe the charter as it is now formulated at 
> > > > https://w3c.github.io/sdw/roadmap/charter-2020.html can go ahead 
> > > > through the W3C approval process. @ted@w3.org, what’s the next 
> > > > step for that?
> > > >
> > > > I confirmed with Scott Simmons that at the OGC side, nothing 
> > > > needs to be done in this case.
> > > >
> > > > Linda
> > > >
> > > > Van: Rob Smith <rob.smith@awayteam.co.uk>
> > > > Verzonden: donderdag 27 februari 2020 14:01
> > > > Aan: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
> > > > CC: public-sdwig@w3.org; ted@w3.org; Jeremy Tandy (
> > > > jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk) <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>
> > > > Onderwerp: Re: Review: New charter
> > > >
> > > > Linda,
> > > >
> > > > Apologies the delay in replying.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I think it would be beneficial to include a WebVMT Note 
> > > > deliverable in the new charter. There are a number of items 
> > > > currently incubating for inclusion in the Editor’s Draft, and 
> > > > publishing a Note subsequently would be a good aim.
> > > >
> > > > The groups for WebVMT coordination at W3C are the Media Timed 
> > > > Events Task Force [1], which is part of the Media & 
> > > > Entertainment IG, and WICG DataCue [2] for video metadata. I’m 
> > > > unsure of MTE TF charter status, but will confirm with Chris 
> > > > Needham and let you know. I can also confirm that the relevant 
> > > > OGC groups are ARML for camera, Moving Features for 
> > > > interpolation and Sensor Things for data sync, which are already 
> > > > included in the current charter. The other possible connection is OGC Geopose [3], again for camera.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your help, and please let me know if you need any 
> > > > further details.
> > > >
> > > > Rob Smith
> > > >
> > > > Away Team
> > > > www.awayteam.co.uk
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Main_Page/Media_Timed_Events_TF

> > > > [2] https://github.com/WICG/datacue/ [3] 
> > > > https://www.ogc.org/projects/groups/geoposeswg

> > > >
> > > > > On 18 Feb 2020, at 10:54, Linda van den Brink < 
> > > > > l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear SDWIG members,
> > > > >
> > > > > Ted and I have been working on the charter renewal for our 
> > > > > group.
> > > > > We would like the charter’s start date to be 1 April 2020 
> > > > > (which is a bit ambitious, but let’s go for it). Please send 
> > > > > in your comments within two weeks as a reply to this email. We 
> > > > > will also consider pull requests.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a specific question for @Rob Smith;
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you want the charter to mention a Note about WebVMT as a 
> > > > > specific work item, and/or to add the web media text tracks 
> > > > > community group to the list of W3C groups to coordinate with?
> > > > >
> > > > > @all: Please let us know if any other work item should be 
> > > > > mentioned explicitly.
> > > > >
> > > > > The draft charter is at:
> > > > > https://w3c.github.io/sdw/roadmap/charter-2020.html

> > > > >
> > > > > Linda
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Away Team
> > > > www.awayteam.co.uk
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
> > > W3C Automotive Lead
> > > https://www.w3.org/auto

> > >
> >
> > --
> > Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
> > W3C Automotive Lead
> > https://www.w3.org/auto

> >
> --
> Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
> W3C Automotive Lead
> https://www.w3.org/auto

>
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2020 15:49:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 April 2020 15:49:51 UTC