Re: Call for Consensus (was RE: [sdw] Formalise release of SDWWG W3C notes as OGC discussion papers (#1174))

Linda, all,

Regarding this document:
> - https://www.w3.org/TR/covjson-overview/ <https://www.w3.org/TR/covjson-overview/>  (OGC 16-145)


There are several documents that provide encodings of Coverages in JSON.
It would be good if we had well known names for the documents.

To that end I recommend changing the title of 16-145 to match its URL:
- Change from:  Overview of the CoverageJSON format
- Change to:      Overview of the CovJSON format

Regards,
George


> On Apr 15, 2020, at 10:18 AM, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl> wrote:
> 
> Dear group, 
>  
> As requested in https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1174 <https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1174> this is a Call for Consensus to release three W3C Notes the SDWWG has produced, as OGC Discussion papers. These Notes were published as W3C documents, and were assumed to have the status of OGC discussion papers - but internal processes mean they only appear in OGC document registers when the OGC Technical Committee (TC) votes to release them - and that step got missed.
>  
> Once the SDWIG decides we want to release these Notes as OGC discussion papers, the OGC TC can decide to publish them.
>  
> These are the three Notes:
> - https://www.w3.org/TR/qb4st/ <https://www.w3.org/TR/qb4st/>  (OGC 16-142)
> - https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/NOTE-eo-qb-20170928/ <https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/NOTE-eo-qb-20170928/>  (OGC 16-125)
> - https://www.w3.org/TR/covjson-overview/ <https://www.w3.org/TR/covjson-overview/>  (OGC 16-145)
>  
> Please let us know if you have any concerns by next Wednesday 29th April 2020.
> Silence is considered consent.
>  
>  
> Thanks, 
> Linda van den Brink
> SDWIG Chair
>  
>  
>  
> Van: Scott Simmons <ssimmons@ogc.org <mailto:ssimmons@ogc.org>> 
> Verzonden: dinsdag 14 april 2020 18:43
> Aan: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl <mailto:l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>>
> CC: George Percivall <gpercivall@ogc.org <mailto:gpercivall@ogc.org>>; public-sdwig <public-sdwig@w3.org <mailto:public-sdwig@w3.org>>
> Onderwerp: Re: [sdw] Formalise release of SDWWG W3C notes as OGC discussion papers (#1174)
>  
> No motion has been made to have CovJSON as a Discussion Paper.
> 
> 
> On Apr 14, 2020, at 7:54 AM, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl <mailto:l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>> wrote:
>  
> The motion indicated by George was related to CovJSON, but not the one I’m looking for. The W3C Note about CoverageJSON was never published as an OGC Discussion paper, as was the intention. Was there ever a motion proposing to do that?
>  
> Van: Scott Simmons <ssimmons@ogc.org <mailto:ssimmons@ogc.org>> 
> Verzonden: dinsdag 14 april 2020 14:32
> Aan: George Percivall <gpercivall@ogc.org <mailto:gpercivall@ogc.org>>
> CC: Scott Simmons via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org <mailto:sysbot+gh@w3.org>>; public-sdwig <public-sdwig@w3.org <mailto:public-sdwig@w3.org>>
> Onderwerp: Re: [sdw] Formalise release of SDWWG W3C notes as OGC discussion papers (#1174)
>  
> Yes, and there is a GitHub repo for the effort, but no charter for a SWG yet.
>  
> Scott
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 14, 2020, at 6:18 AM, George Percivall <gpercivall@ogc.org <mailto:gpercivall@ogc.org>> wrote:
>  
> This motion was approved in the Singapore TC, Feb 2019:
>  
> •The Met Ocean DWG recommends that the OGC Technical Committee approve the development of a charter to establish a SWG to progress Coverage JSON to an OGC Implementation Standard.
> Coverage JSON fits the ISO concept but being schema-less, not completely WCS2.1/CIS1.1 compatible
> Motion: Don Sullivan, NASA
> Second: Chris Little, UK Met Office
> Discussion: the originator and implementer of the proposal (Jon Blower, Reading University) is willing to be involved in the process, but not take a lead. The NetCDF community also involved in using CoverageJSON . 
> NOTUC There was no objection to unanimous consent
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 14, 2020, at 8:03 AM, Scott Simmons via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org <mailto:sysbot+gh@w3.org>> wrote:
>  
> @lvdbrink yes, a motion from SDWIG is sufficient as it is an OGC subcommittee
> 
> -- 
> GitHub Notification of comment by ogcscotts
> Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1174#issuecomment-613402118 <https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1174#issuecomment-613402118> using your GitHub account
> 
>  
>  
> Keep up with all the OGC news by signing up to our quarterly newsletter at http://newsletter.opengeospatial.org <http://newsletter.opengeospatial.org/>
>  
> Interested in attending the next OGC Technical and Planning Committee Meeting? Find out more at http://www.ogcmeet.org <http://www.ogcmeet.org/>
>  
>  
> Keep up with all the OGC news by signing up to our quarterly newsletter at http://newsletter.opengeospatial.org <http://newsletter.opengeospatial.org/>
>  
> Interested in attending the next OGC Technical and Planning Committee Meeting? Find out more at http://www.ogcmeet.org <http://www.ogcmeet.org/>
>  
>  
> Keep up with all the OGC news by signing up to our quarterly newsletter at http://newsletter.opengeospatial.org <http://newsletter.opengeospatial.org/>
>  
> Interested in attending the next OGC Technical and Planning Committee Meeting? Find out more at http://www.ogcmeet.org <http://www.ogcmeet.org/>

-- 
Keep up with all the OGC news by signing up to our quarterly newsletter at 
http://newsletter.opengeospatial.org 
<http://newsletter.opengeospatial.org/>



_Interested in attending the 
next OGC Technical and Planning Committee Meeting? Find out more at 
http://www.ogcmeet.org <http://www.ogcmeet.org/>_