billroberts: On Monday, Phil got in touch to check how things are going
… I think he's suggesting that next week's plenary is the last one.
… And that we should be able to present our final docs to that group. Which gives is a week to finish things off.
… Is there something that the WG has to do?
phila: All wwe need is a resolution to publish each of the docs.
billroberts: So with that target of 1 week
… Let's leave Coverage JSON until Jon is here.
dmitrybrizhinev: we're basically done. Sam has been working on it on the last few weeks, I made one last commit.
… The current doc is the finished thing as far as we're concerned.
dmitrybrizhinev: The pull requests may have been open for a couple of weeks. There's one open
billroberts: So ... that PR includes the commits that you've done today. OK.
… So who is a good person to cast their eyes over that before it's merged.
dmitrybrizhinev: It used to be Kerry
billroberts: I'm happy to do that, and will ask for assistance if I need it.
Action: billroberts to review Pull request 899 and merge if happy
<trackbot> Created ACTION-375 - Review pull request 899 and merge if happy or get back to dmitrybrizhinev if needed [on Bill Roberts - due 2017-06-14].
billroberts: How's it going Rob?
roba: There are 2 open issues. One was there is the SDW was going to get a common vocab together.
… And the other was around an example of a gridded coverage which, Bill, you said you'd look at.
roba: Is it OK to leave it with a note to say that an example is needed here?
billroberts: I'm still happy to do that and the deadline pushes it up the priority list. I can get that done by the end of the week.
phila: Suggests that next week's plenary is the deadline for any changes. So the WG can vote to publish then
[Minor discussion about open issues (no) and Notes in the doc (OK)]
roba: GSA is looking at QB4ST, which will be useful but not in time to be useful for the current WG.
billroberts: Leave that with me then and I'll try and create an example that's good enough to include.
roba: In the context of hte DXWG, there are use cases around the structure of data. RDF QB etc are therefore in scope for that
… How do we handle that?
phila: [Rambles on about DCAT Core, profiles, JWOC and DXWG]
[General agreement that JWOC is the place to talk about statistical data descriptions, stat BP etc.]
billroberts: Mentions statDCAT-AP
billroberts: There are things for Jon and me both to do
… I've explained the deadline of next week and we think we can meet it.
… I had the task to update the references in the doc which I've now done. I handed over to Jon and explained how to use ReSpec for that.
… The other thing I had to do was to add a section X-ref to the BP doc, which I'm working on today.
… Then Jon has everything else... Filling in for some open issues in the doc and some short To Dos
… Nothing major, it should be clear in his head.
… Then that would be it.
… I've seen some mails between Jon and Scott thinking about poss future OGC track
billroberts: In your draft plan for JWOC, is there a CovJSON in that?
phila: The charter says: "In addition, the Interest Group will assess the readiness of CoverageJSON for formal standarization. CoverageJSON is described, but not defined, in a Note published by the Spatial Data on the Web WG. It was originally developed by the University of Reading under the MELODIES project to provide a method of representing coverage data, such as Earth observation data, in JSON. The IG will monitor and encourage further development of the
standard with a view to chartering a future Standards Working Group for its formal definition."
[Phil talks about JWOC deciding if when and where future work on CoverageJSON will happen]
billroberts: So if we achieve our goal of getting things done by next week then this should be the last call for this group too unless the WWG comes back with more complex stuff for us to to.
… I'm sure we'll all talk again soon.
… Thank you all.
Resolved: Thanks to Bill for all your work in chairing the Coverage Sub Group
<billroberts> bye all