Approve minutes of last meeting?
<tidoust> Issue #990 Updates to SDW IG home page
Jeremy: took an action at last meeting to update the approach to the web page, so we were not always dependent on Francois to update it
… considered using Jekyll and Markdown but concluded that because the requirements are so simple (just one page) there was not much extra benefit from using Jekyll
… agendas and minutes get published to a permanent URL using existing tools, so the home page can just link to those
Jeremy: For each individual project, we can use pages within the repository to share information
Jeremy has created a new version of the home page in github, more or less identical to the original one that Francois created and added links to current versions of the main documents
Jeremy: would a web page like this, plus mailing list for agendas, plus markdown pages in the repository meet our needs?
<brinkwoman> I only looked for a minute, but +1 I think
Francois is happy with it, and will let us know if any specific requirements from W3C arise at a later date (there are no specific ones at the moment)
Jeremy: Francois, can you redirect the sdwig home page URL to the github pages?
Action: Francois to add a redirect from w3.org to the GitHub page
<trackbot> Created ACTION-379 - Add a redirect from w3.org to the github page [on François Daoust - due 2018-01-10].
Francois: no work has been done but a couple of issues have been raised against the time ontology and no response to those yet
… it would be good for Chris and/or Simon to consider those
Jeremy: Chris is not yet back to work after the holidays
… so let's ping people via the mailing list
Francois will assign those issues to Chris and Simon
billroberts: Not much to report on Stats on the Web BP. Last call became a dial-in to the geosemantic session of NZ meeting.
… We mostly advertized our work to OGC people
… Apart from that, goal is to collect use cases and requirements.
… I hope we'll have some new material to discuss for next call on January 10th.
… Content with the progress for now.
… We have an enthusiastic group.
… I'll create milestones so that we can track progress.
Armin is not on the call today.
no-one else is aware of progress
Jano is due to lead this adn is not on the call
no-one on the call knows about progress
MichaelGordon: we had a good call before Christmas and discussed the range of activities the group could do
… most of the call was around how to encourage adoption of the BPs and how to evangelise about them
MichaelGordon: Following that meeting I had an action to write up the ideas on a github page (link above)
… The next stage is to flesh out those headings and to put together a 'comms plan'
… then pick one of the gaps in the best practices, already identified, based on feedback and demand
Jeremy: has there been much feedback so far?
MichaelGordon: not much yet, but seeing some adoption and references in the next WFS draft and Testbed 14
MichaelGordon: so seeing early adopters in OGC and can reach out to them for some focused feedback
… Some members of the group have already implemented some of the BPs and so can give feedback from that
<MichaelGordon> WFS / FES
ScottSimmons: SDWBP document was the motivation for the setting up of the OGC WFS/FES working group, developing the WFS3.0 specficiation and also working with ISO TC211
<brinkwoman> I'm really happy that we have had this impact
Jtandy: that deserves a round of applause!
<brinkwoman> we could talk to some early adopters of OGC at the next TC meeting
<brinkwoman> organize a short session
jtandy: yes that's a good idea
jtandy: Michael could you please add a github issue to do as Linda suggests
jtandy: I've been talking to Met Office colleagues about API patterns
… and making them more aware of the SDWBP
… which I hope will lead to some feedback for Michael's stream of work
MichaelGordon: agree that examples and feedback will be a valuable addition to the BPs themselves
… The next call is in 2 weeks and at that point we can structure these activities and agree who is leading on what
jtandy: Suggest that, as with Bill's work, it would be good to define where the group should be in say 2 months from now
… as we noticed in the previous working group that keeping up the tempo of work proved really important for getting engagement
Rob Atkinson is leading that and not on the call. Anyone else knows anything?
jtandy: none of the editors of that have engaged with this group yet, so I'll take an action to talk to Kerry, Dimitri and Sam and see if they plan to do more on it
<ScottSimmons> 1. Revise OGC TC Policies and Procedures to include "authoritative" SDOs (other than just ISO) for submittal of standards to OGC; W3C is explicitly mentioned as a likely example.
<ScottSimmons> 2. OpenAPI: at least two SWGs (WFS and WPS) are now using OpenAPI to define their next generation of standards. TC agreed not to mandate OpenAPI as the API definition method, but to recommend use of OpenAPI. Still issues with version 2 vs. 3. OGC will need to develop some guidance and likely policy around use of API definition methods (at a minimum, align with the Modular Spec).
<jtandy> OpenAPI ... Swagger as was
jtandy: OpenAPI is developed by a 'de facto' standards organisation, a vendor-led group. Has OGC talked to this group?
ScottSimmons: George Percival is on the call today and we have discussed this, including whether OGC should join the OpenAPI group
… OpenAPI may not be as open as some groups
… OGC has good experience with Swagger
gperciva: They seemed quite open to discussions, but suggested OGC just joins as a fee-paying member rather than a collaboration of SDOs
… may be worth discussing that again with them
<ScottSimmons> 3. Agreed to merge Metadata and Catalog DWGs. The GeoDCAT subgroup will fall under this new DWG. Scope will initially be that of both charters, but a new charter needs to be created. Looking for chairs. Expect close cooperation from this DWG and perhaps a GeoDCAT Community standard.
jtandy: is there an action for this group to help link W3C and OGC activities on DCAT/GeoDCAT?
ScottSimmons: it is probably a bit early for that
jtandy: Andrea Perrego could be a useful person to make that happen
… can we put this on the agenda of the next OGC TC in Orleans ?
<ScottSimmons> 4. Security DWG working more directly with W3C Web Security IG (Andreas Mattheus)
<ScottSimmons> 5. New technology trends being evaluated: a. autonomous vehicles and autonomous navigation systems (emphasis on ground and marine); b. "just in time" analytics - delivering what can be delivered in the time allowed
<ScottSimmons> 6. More interest in joint OGC-W3C pilot on Augmented Reality: http://www.opengeospatial.org/pressroom/pressreleases/2697
<ScottSimmons> 7. Datacubes - is there a need for a new DWG? Consider CovJSON work and other webby efforts, not just traditional coverages
<ScottSimmons> 8. Restarting Oblique Imagery DWG - emphasis will be on web service of imagery; likely will be renamed "Perspective Imagery"
<ScottSimmons> 9. Statistical Data on the Web: definitely interest from OGC members, some continuing concern about trying to create a statistics DWG in the OGC as most members see "geostatistics" as being domain-driven. So maybe the larger discussions being led in W3C might be just fine.
Peter Rushforth: are there compatibility issues when moving from existing services?
...the MappingML activity has been document focused
...APIs are not always consistent with the way that browsers work. Is there a document based approach already in consideration?
ScottSimmons: the OpenAPI efforts are around making the services more 'RESTful'. These have built on the existing OGC standards
… so relatively straightforward to adapt existing definitions to make them more developer friendly
… There's nothing to stop us taking a document based approach where that seems the best way
<gperciva> Useful to think about "document oriented maps" to motivate and charcterize MapML
<gperciva> Use of the SSN Ontology and Jano’s work on Moving objects in the ESIP Drone community. Developing ontology for science data acquisition by airborne drones. Issues about provenance and data collection management. VOCamp session in November; Discussion at AGU in December; and ESIP Winter meeting next week: "Joint session between the Semantic Web cluster and Drone Cluster: Applying semantic tech to sUAS data” http://sched.co/D6DQ
ESIP: Earth Science Information Partnership
Next plenary call: will discuss dates on the mailing list
Jeremy, Scott, Francois and I have come up with two options:
- One f2f in jan/feb, location tbd (I could host again at Geonovum, other offers welcome)
- One at OGC TC 4-8 June at Fort Collins, Colorado
- One at TPAC in Lyon in October.
The advantage of this scenario is that not all f2f meetings are in Europe in this option. We add a meeting in Jan/Feb because otherwise we have to wait until June for our first f2f, which may slow our momentum.
- One at OGC TC in 19-23 March in Orleans
- One at TPAC in Lyon in October
The advantage is that we only have to travel two times for f2f meetings, and they're nicely distributed over the year. However, both are in Europe.
<jtandy> Option 1 votes?
<billroberts> +1 (because I think it's good to have a first meeting soonish if poss)
<jtandy> Option 2 votes?
<tidoust> +1 (works for me as well)
<MichaelGordon> +1 (works for me as well)
<ScottSimmons> * I just want to buy the beer at the one in Fort Collins
<MichaelGordon> No one is going to stop you
jtandy: seems a small preference for Option 1. Anyone not happy?
… no objections, so let's go with that
<brinkwoman> found possible dates:
<brinkwoman> feb 1 and 2
<brinkwoman> feb 6 and 7
<brinkwoman> feb 19 and 20
<MichaelGordon> 19/20 +1
<jtandy> 19/20 +1
<brinkwoman> fine with 3rd option
<tidoust> 19/20 +1
<billroberts> 19/20 +1
<ScottSimmons> I'm likely only remote on the Feb meeting
<ScottSimmons> 19/20 better
jtandy: Linda and I will take some actions to plan a meeting in Amersfoort on 19/20 Feb
<brinkwoman> yep will take the lead
jtandy: one more item on the agenda, but we're over time
tidoust: Michael Collins from the W3C accessibility group commented on work on accessibility in maps and for directions
… i.e. how to get from point A to point B
… I'm happy to investigate ideas around accessibility of maps with teh accessibility team
<brinkwoman> I think it would be great if you can do that Francois
PeterRushforth: Google has done a lot of work on making their maps accessible so would be great to have some involvement of their map people
jtandy: notes that Ed Parsons is a member of this group. Would be interesting also to connect to other map vendors
jtandy: Francois can make an initial outline of what would be relevant and then we can see how that fits in the schedule
… let's raise it in the public list
… and we will add it (tentatively) to the work plan
<MichaelGordon> Issue I was to raise is raised here: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/991
<brinkwoman> Thank you all, next time I'll try to have sound again!