11:01:34 RRSAgent has joined #sdw 11:01:34 logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/06/24-sdw-irc 11:01:41 Zakim has joined #sdw 11:01:46 Meeting: Spatial Data on the Web IG F2F - Day 1/2 11:01:58 present+ Linda, ClemensPortele, Francois 11:02:05 Chair: Linda, Jeremy 11:02:31 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2017/sdwig/meetings/f2f-4.html 11:03:28 billroberts has joined #sdw 11:04:44 present+ billroberts 11:04:56 jtandy has joined #sdw 11:05:11 Percivall has joined #sdw 11:05:28 present+ MichaelGordon 11:05:36 Roope_Tervo has joined #sdw 11:05:37 Leif has joined #sdw 11:05:43 @tidoust just checking if you can hear us 11:05:49 mburgoyne has joined #sdw 11:06:02 Scribe: Clemens Portele 11:06:08 Scribenick: ClemensPortele 11:06:12 pvretano has joined #sdw 11:06:17 Christian_Elfers has joined #sdw 11:06:57 Cperey has joined #sdw 11:09:39 francois - can you here us 11:10:09 present+ ErikvdZee 11:10:14 \me rest are on irc 11:10:41 present+ ClemensPortele, billroberts, brinkwoman, jtandy, Christian_Elfers, Cperey, Leif, MichaelGordon, mburgoyne, Percivall, pvretano, Roope_Tervo 11:13:50 Chrislittle has joined #sdw 11:14:10 present+ ChrisLittle 11:15:24 Present+ 11:15:24 TOPIC: Spatial data on the Web BP implementation reports 11:18:14 jtandy: Work on SDW Best Practice completed in 2017 and helped to influenced several activities including WFS 3.0 in OGC. The SDWIG does not do standards, but helps to move relevant pieces of work forward. 11:18:58 ... first item on the agenda are the best practice implementation reports to document implementations of the best practices 11:18:59 Christian_Elfers has joined #sdw 11:20:15 MichaelGordon: We now have 4 implementation reports (PSMA Australia, Kadaster NL, Geobasis NRW, OS). 70%-85% conformance. 11:21:25 ClemensPortele: The NRW implementation does not intend to reach 100% compliance as some BP aspects are not applicable. 11:21:50 q+ 11:22:10 MichaelGordon: Yes, this and that most of the implementations are existing implementations. 11:22:29 ChrisLittle_ has joined #sdw 11:22:44 ... BP document had only 1 minor correction in 2 years. 11:22:50 Present+ 11:23:01 Q+ 11:23:10 ... More implementations potentially coming through OGC API development 11:23:27 https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/bp/BP-implementation-reports.md 11:23:28 A- 11:23:39 Q- 11:24:21 MichaelGordon: (shows implementation report pages on GitHub) 11:25:24 ... Some of the "conformances" is really partial, but we can only express that in the text, the checkbox is yes/no 11:26:04 jtandy: Should we update the BP document to distinguish mandatory checks from optional ones? 11:26:52 Leif has joined #sdw 11:29:09 q- 11:30:16 ACTION: MichaelGordon to review best practices to suggest a list of the most important checks to the best practices and distinguish them from conditional checks due end of August 2019 11:32:16 MichaelGordon: (shows example "how to test" section in the best practice document) 11:33:15 Christian_Elfers has joined #sdw 11:34:15 ... What do we want to do before close 2019? 11:34:21 q+ 11:34:32 ... Or the end the end of the SDWIG... 11:35:31 q? 11:35:40 ack linda 11:35:49 ack brinkwoman 11:37:00 brinkwoman: It is a good idea to add more recent examples. We also said a while ago that we use the reports to write an article. Updating the examples looks like it should have higher priority. 11:38:20 ClemensPortele: I will have a look at examples from the OGC API point of view. 11:38:45 q+ 11:39:08 billroberts: I will also have a review to look for new examples. 11:39:22 jtandy: What else do you have in mind? 11:40:34 MichaelGordon: I expect the OGC API activities could provide more implementation reports. It mainly is a task to identify ones and convince people to spend the effort. 11:40:36 ack billroberts 11:41:26 billroberts: I am planning to create a report for the English Environment Agency. 11:41:39 josephabhayaratna has joined #sdw 11:42:04 MichaelGordon: Would the Weather on the Web work be another candidate? 11:42:29 mburgoyne: One challenge is that the dynamic nature of the data, which is a challenge for live links. 11:42:51 MichaelGordon: Yes, that would be a nice variation from the current reports. 11:43:48 jtandy: It would be a report on the UK MetOffice implementation (service hub). 11:44:45 jtandy: Roope_Tervo, what is the status of your implementation? 11:45:34 Roope_Tervo: It is in proof-of-concept state, it is unclear when it will be operational. I will have a look, if we could prepare a report. 11:47:32 MichaelGordon: If we achieve 5-6 reports from different backgrounds that would be good, so if we get two more we should be fine. 11:48:41 MichaelGordon: On the article, what would be the goal, just on the BP or the scope of the whole IG? 11:50:45 jtandy: I was thinking that we focus on the BP work. The article should be something that the press could reuse, a blog, etc. 11:51:27 MichaelGordon: I will create an early draft and send it out for comments. 11:52:59 ACTION: MichaelGordon to create a draft for an article on the best practices due end of August 2019 11:55:19 ChrisLittle has joined #sdw 11:55:29 RRSAgent, makes logs public 11:55:29 I'm logging. I don't understand 'makes logs public', tidoust. Try /msg RRSAgent help 11:55:40 RRSAgent, make logs public 11:56:03 MichaelGordon: Open issues on GitHub... 11:56:07 https://github.com/w3c/sdw/projects/1 11:57:00 Hot topic: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1085 11:57:04 q+ 11:58:24 ack ClemensPortele 11:58:26 MichaelGordon: We agreed to see value and there are open issues how to address this 12:00:41 q+ 12:01:11 ClemensPortele: We have looked into sitemaps and it helps a bit, but the fundamental issues remain. There is also an event at JRC next week related to this. 12:02:55 ack billroberts 12:03:13 ACTION: ClemensPortele to update #1085 with any conclusions after the workshop at JRC 12:04:39 billroberts: A general guidance how to deal with indexing of paginated resources with a large numbers of resources would be helpful. 12:04:45 q? 12:05:34 jtandy: It will be up to communities whether it is valuable to index the individual items in collections. 12:06:06 MichaelGordon: (goes through list of open issues in https://github.com/w3c/sdw/projects/1) 12:06:37 jtandy: Any new input on #1086 (BP 14; describing positional accuracy)? 12:07:01 MichaelGordon: No new input so far 12:07:17 jtandy: Should we remove it then? 12:08:14 q? 12:09:42 q+ 12:10:18 ChristinePerey: Microsoft has requirements for high accuracy in their HoloLens work. This might be a candidate? 12:12:21 ack mburgoyne 12:13:18 (discussion that quality is generally important, and often information exists, but not in a web-friendly way) 12:14:39 MichaelGordon: It could be moved to the gaps in current practice section, if we don't find implementation reports. 12:15:36 ACTION: MichaelGordon to move BP 14 to the "gaps in current practice" section due end of December 2019 12:18:24 MichaelGordon: #1050 can probably be closed once we have the article 12:20:32 MichaelGordon: #1084 - Andrea proposed to discuss the DCAT revision during this meeting 12:21:07 MichaelGordon: #1037 is a bug that will be fixed in the editing 12:21:11 q? 12:21:49 MichaelGordon: #1044 (conneg by profile) is on the agenda later 12:22:07 TOPIC: OGC API hackathon report 12:23:03 MichaelGordon: (reuses slides shown by Gobe in the OGC TC Opening plenary) 12:24:35 ... OGC API Hackathon in London last Thursday/Friday, work on API implementations for Maps, Tiles, Coverages, Processes, Features 12:27:08 ... OS is looking how people will interact with OS data in the future and sponsored the hackathon for this reason 12:27:52 ... good spirit and good feedback from Geovation developers that are not geo-experts and are interested in the new specs 12:28:10 Q+ 12:29:30 ack ChrisLittle 12:29:32 ... also good that it appears as a common family of standards 12:30:13 ChrisLittle: It does not break anything done in features 12:32:16 ClemensPortele/pvretano: Yes, there are a few details that need to be worked out on the collection level where to draw the line between Common and the resource-specific specs 12:32:52 coffee break 12:44:15 ClemensPortele has joined #sdw 12:44:18 ClemensP_ has joined #sdw 12:45:26 billroberts has joined #sdw 12:48:37 billrobe_ has joined #sdw 12:50:19 billroberts has joined #sdw 12:50:43 ClemensPortele has joined #sdw 12:50:44 billrobe_ has joined #sdw 12:52:04 billrob__ has joined #sdw 12:53:29 ClemensPortele has joined #sdw 12:53:44 ted has joined #sdw 12:53:54 scribe:billroberts 12:54:00 scribenick:billroberts 12:56:28 Leif has joined #sdw 12:56:31 mburgoyne has joined #sdw 12:56:35 RobSmith has joined #sdw 12:56:44 TomMahieu has joined #sdw 12:57:24 Topic: hackathon (continued) 12:58:00 q+ 12:58:33 us has joined #sdw 12:58:48 Mark: trying to make a lot of APIs consistent with each other might make it complicated and so chase away less expert users. 12:59:17 ...You need to design an API with a target audience in mind 13:00:05 MichaelGordon: I had the opposite view and found the new proposed approach seemed to make it more understandable 13:01:19 Mark: coverages are likely to be used by specialists only. Note that the jargon can be confusing in itself, eg talk of Features and Coverages don't mean much to lay people 13:02:37 MichaelGordon: tiles and features might be the most commonly used aspects 13:02:55 q? 13:04:48 Roope_Tervo has joined #sdw 13:05:06 jtandy: to summarise, we are balancing the desire of engineers to make things better vs what users can understand. So making sure we do user testing is done is important. 13:05:10 ack RobSmith 13:06:24 RobSmith: the current web map APIs are an interesting example. Eg mapbox, leaflet are easy for software people with little spatial knowledge, whereas the older versions of OpenLayers was harder for people in that community 13:07:50 MichaelGordon: UK government has set up a Geospatial Commission to look at geospatial strategy for the UK as well as running a series of projects. They are collaborating with various relevant public sector bodies 13:08:29 ...There are 4 projects currently ongoing: Data Discoverability, Licensing, Linked Identifiers, Enhancing of the Core Data Asset 13:09:05 ...the Linked Identifiers report has about 60 recommendations. It draws to some extend from the SDW Best Practices 13:09:53 ...(the report is not yet available publicly but should come soon) 13:11:11 ...Data Discoverability: user research was carried out with people with various levels of experience 13:11:21 ...Main findings so far: 13:12:02 ... - people use Google to find data (as opposed to government operated websites/catalogues) 13:14:12 ... - CSV catalogues were produced and received a mixed response 13:15:14 jtandy: noted the CSV on the Web standards from W3C that could offer some useful facilities for this kind of thing 13:15:44 MichaelGordon (discoverability findings continued) 13:16:17 ...some users want a clearer journey from catalogue to data 13:18:11 jtandy: there is a workshop next week at JRC covering this topic. Some of the outcomes of that will be linked back to this work 13:20:10 jtandy: can Michael persuade the Geospatial Commission to publish outcomes as OGC reports? 13:20:38 Michael: step one is getting agreement to publish openly, then we can think about which mechanisms 13:20:52 q? 13:22:58 https://github.com/w3c/strategy 13:23:12 Topic: Strategy Funnel review 13:24:39 jtandy: we review things from W3C that have spatial aspects 13:25:05 ...the W3C strategy funnel lists things that are being taken towards standardisation, showing which stage they are at 13:26:06 ... here are the geospatial ones: https://github.com/w3c/strategy/projects/2?card_filter_query=label%3Ageospatial 13:27:06 ...These include MapML, which is being taken forward by Peter Rushforth in a W3C community group and in OGC Testbed 15 13:28:58 ...CityJSON: (a JSON version of CityGML v2) has reasonably broad adoption. Currently stalled and should perhaps be moved to the 'Parking Lot' 13:29:21 ...the developers of CityJSON are not currently pushing for this to be taken through the standardisation process 13:30:32 tidoust: yes parking lot is fine if they are not pursuing standardisation 13:31:05 PROPOSAL: move CityJSON activity in the strategy funnel to parking lot 13:31:12 +1 13:31:14 +1 13:31:15 +1 13:31:17 +1 13:31:20 +1 13:31:23 +1 13:31:45 jtandy: no objections so resolved 13:31:53 RESOLVED: move CityJSON activity in the strategy funnel to parking lot 13:32:12 RRSAgent, draft minutes v2 13:32:12 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/06/24-sdw-minutes.html tidoust 13:32:53 jtandy: next, Linked Building Data. Aim to harmonise with CityGML and other existing standards. This is mainly a communication activity 13:33:16 ...WebVMT is on the agenda for tomorrow and Rob Smith will present in more detail 13:33:41 ...SSN v2 - currently parked but may kick off again soon 13:33:58 ...CoverageJSON is now incorporated in the OGC work on Web Coverage Service 13:33:59 [Linked Building Data Community Group is seeking to charter as a W3C Working Group, I'll be discussing with the chairs later this week or next] 13:34:34 jtandy: is anyone aware of other initiatives that should be added to this pipeline? 13:34:41 q? 13:35:27 No additional items for the funnel were proposed. 13:36:46 jtandy: does anyone want to discuss OGC Technology Trends? 13:36:54 https://github.com/opengeospatial/OGC-Technology-Trends 13:37:37 tmahieu has joined #sdw 13:38:43 jtandy: note there is a 'Spatial Data on the Web' strand to the trends mind map and we'll cover those items during the meeting 13:38:58 Topic: Spatial Ontology/GeoSPARQL 13:40:20 brinkwoman: see http://ogcmeet.org/ There is a Geosemantics session in the OGC agenda for Thursday. It will cover a discussion of whether to create a new spatial ontology, or to further develop the GeoSPARQL ontology 13:40:46 ...Frans Knibbe proposes have something equivalent to OWL Time. 13:41:08 ...so come on Thursday if you want to contribute 13:42:14 josephabhayaratna (jo): a number of recent projects have shown some common problems and a group of people wanting to do something about it 13:42:58 ...including Nicholas Car from CSIRO who has suggested some extensions to GeoSPARQL that can deal with some of the user needs. He will present on Thursday 13:43:47 q? 13:44:37 billroberts: we use existing GeoSPARQL in practice 13:45:00 jo: can you send some more info on experience? 13:46:35 jtandy: please send via public mailing list 13:46:56 Topic: CRS Content Negotiation 13:48:33 jo: (sharing screen) various working groups in OGC and W3C have been looking at related items, eg the Data Exchange Working Group 13:49:01 ...There are issues with geojson for example, which currently has to be WGS84, but that's not always the best choice of CRS 13:49:46 ...It has been suggested that conneg could be used for CRS in a similar way to DXWG ideas on conneg for application profiles 13:50:32 q? 13:50:45 ...Need something like a register of CRS that could be used in implementations. An HTTP Accept header would be needed 13:51:07 ...with unambiguous ways to refer to the CRS 13:51:27 ...Jo has been looking for people in OGC who could help with that 13:51:57 (we can hear you again now - there is a delay on the line I think and some intermittent connection) 13:52:04 (lost you again) 13:53:41 ...note lots of contributions. Jo will share draft 13:54:57 jtandy: on behalf of SDWIG, we'd be happy to help share this info - eg via public mailing list. 13:55:28 jo: will ask contributors first just to check attribution is properly included, then put it on the public mailing list 13:55:48 jtandy: suggest we put this in the Exploration phase of the strategy funnel 13:56:23 jtandy: Francois, please work with Joseph to get this into the Strategy Funnel 13:57:36 jtandy: anyone here want to help progress ? 13:57:56 Eric Boisvert has volunteered to help 13:58:39 and Rob Smith thinks Peter Rushforth might be interested to help so we should ask him 13:59:38 meeting ajourned until 4:30 14:13:09 billroberts has joined #sdw 14:20:45 ClemensPortele has joined #sdw 14:29:56 brinkwoman|2 has joined #sdw 14:32:58 can you hear us? 14:35:42 hi... we are just trying to resolve audio issues 14:38:07 KJ has joined #sdw 14:38:38 us has joined #sdw 14:39:06 scribe: Linda van den Brink 14:39:30 scribenick: brinkwoman 14:39:46 Cperey_ has joined #sdw 14:39:56 topic: future direction of sdwig 14:40:55 https://www.w3.org/2017/sdwig/ 14:41:32 jtandy: at w3c groups are chartered for a limited time period, in this case until end of 2019 14:41:49 greenwood has joined #sdw 14:42:15 scribe:Eric Boisvert 14:42:36 scribenick:greenwood 14:43:33 ssimmons has joined #sdw 14:43:52 jtandy: this group end 2019. Look at charter. 14:44:28 jtandy: need to decide what to do. OGCTC good occasion to discuss and decide. typicall 2 year cycle 14:45:11 jtandy: to fix in w3c cycle. 3 years cycles. This expected to be first discussion 14:45:44 jtandy: lots of dividen from association OGC W3C on geospatial issues. biggest for OGC : development of WFS3 14:46:07 jtandy: wants to propose to keep going. 14:46:58 ssimmons: OGC don't time limit. no worry about same constraints. hate to see any hurdle. very useful for us 14:47:39 ssimmons: impacting a lot of things. O&M, WFS, lots of influence. changes overall authority. ISO not the only authority 14:48:11 present+ ssimmons 14:48:11 boyan: raised visibility of spatial 14:49:06 jtandy: we all agree . what basis does that take ?. from chair view. best practice stuff, few people . 1 task 1 person 14:49:57 jtandy: often 1 person, 1 task. Difficult to create a coherent group. Hard to get time to meet because time zone 14:50:23 jtandy: moved to "focus week". Good turn around on issues. 14:50:42 Linda bringing best practice to screen 14:51:12 josephabhayaratna: question "inaudible" 14:51:57 q+ 14:52:05 jtandy: hot topic identifies. last 3 months - almost no work. not well functionning from a chair. Looks like individual moving issues 14:52:16 q+ 14:52:19 ack ted 14:52:30 Christian_Elfers has joined #sdw 14:53:25 ted: background. is it because of availability, interest . works in isolation. Better narrower scope ? 14:54:02 jtandy: reduce scope and do fewer things ? As a group we lack coherence similar to best practice. Had impact on everybody 14:54:09 q+ 14:54:11 jtandy: less distraction ? 14:54:33 ack ssimmons 14:54:37 jtandy: we created a mechanism to have diversity 14:54:50 [if there is a prioritized queue of topics, then those with topics further down the list will have some motivation to help with the ones ahead of it] 14:55:01 [even if not their core interest/expertise] 14:55:20 ssimmons: you are correct. best practice was the only product. standard were different. lots of focus. Large group . more exciting to work on BP 14:55:28 q+ 14:55:42 ssimmons: lots of standard starts with 1 person. not unusual 14:55:44 ack billroberts 14:55:54 [alternately how do we find additional people with interest and expertise in specific topics to draw in on furthering the work?] 14:57:01 billroberts: agree jt. Kind of darwinian only one left of then group. 14:57:28 q? 14:57:38 billroberts: Not of a lot of people on the group who want to work on 1 person things ?. hard to know. start small and grow. various reasons. 14:57:59 billroberts: maybe having focus where significant contribution 14:58:01 ack mburgoyne 14:58:58 mburgoyne: Once you start going to standard. Taking from opposite view. Is is worth include in OGC 14:59:30 [criteria for consideration of a topic being taken up could be critical mass of interested parties > 1] 14:59:52 Christian_Elfers: example of other example outside w3c is immersive 15:00:04 billroberts has joined #sdw 15:00:10 jtandy: people who wants to bring AI in browser 15:00:34 jtandy: same for spatial ancher. apply ancher in real world in video 15:00:48 s/Christian_Elfers/Christine Perey 15:01:06 s/AI/AR 15:01:27 jtandy: another one (calling ted) : autonomous vehicle. looking into in-car stuff. prediction: outside will be important 15:01:49 q+ 15:02:25 jtandy: another example: future vision of this group. rather trying to help people, maybe we should coordinate. You know what Immer Reality group. We have gaming group 15:02:38 q+ 15:02:43 jtandy: role of this relationship to coodinate and overlap share interest 15:02:47 ack ssimmons 15:03:24 ssimmons: coordination is really import. we got cue on autonomous vehicle. waiting for standard. OGC now attending 15:03:42 ack ted 15:03:43 ssimmons: coordinate will become important. we should be contact 15:04:55 ted: talking about autonomous vehicle charter. concentrate on data available to vehicle *cut* 15:05:04 brinkwoman has joined #sdw 15:05:28 s/things/thinks 15:06:33 ted: roolback : have had strong interest LBS for vehicle . algees ? we have now useful information, we can create ontologies. We are in the peripheries, we can provide data 15:07:12 Christian_Elfers: what is coordination effort. Active role in attending. interjecting, introducing in those groups 15:08:07 jtandy: I see a coordination group, and I see that other group interest. Like a dating agency. You both looks like you would go along great 15:08:52 jtandy: cross polinisation and do the introduction. Where we have seen success is where we have seen interesting body of work into another 15:09:35 boyan: struggling. value was really in the product in the working group. If the problem is to generate more participant. not sure if you'll get more participation with coordination 15:10:04 jtandy: wg was charted to deliver particular product. interest group is to incubate to get ready for "chartership" 15:10:36 jtandy: what we are trying to do. In order to get to standard, need support to get the work done. main difference between two 15:11:16 jtandy: for encourage participation. if the group plan to do work, you need more participant. But it might be a different level of work 15:11:39 boyan: smaller body coordinate, larger body does the work. 15:12:05 q+ 15:12:05 jtandy: In order to drive participation, the reward is tangible thing. Best practice or standard 15:12:13 boyan: no commitment - don't do it 15:12:19 q+ 15:13:01 boyan: group might lull until they realise they need to do something 15:13:18 jtandy: your point is inactivity until we agree on issue 15:13:36 boyan: still need coordination to lead 15:14:01 q+ 15:14:12 ack mburgoyne 15:14:13 jtandy: if we realise a group of people interested - might tell them to create a one 15:14:43 mburgoyne: Might not aware of existance 15:14:46 ack ssimmons 15:15:10 ssimmons: two great success. understanding operation and business to generate the right amount of excitement 15:15:44 ssimmons: we have to find work to generate sponsor, align to their business. ISO was opposite. OGC had to do all the work to hand them over 15:16:08 ack ted 15:16:08 ssimmons: We have to probably one more round to understand excitement generator 15:17:10 q? 15:17:20 q+ jtandy 15:17:42 ted: first. pro and cons for each. criteria, 5 supporters, then github. sort of incubator group. interest group might interest to follow that model. interest group try to generate excitement 15:18:28 ack jtandy 15:18:37 greenwoood: sorry for bad notes 15:19:29 [maybe IG can further the Linked Building Data Community Group (CG) model. to form a CG at W3C someone proposes an idea for potential standardization, at least N (5?) need to endorse it] 15:19:36 jtandy: what interest group has provide is safe place to spin idea in public. if you want to share, where do you start. start github in NRCan?. This liaison example is a github place 15:20:16 jtandy: example. CRS content negotiation. No one looking at this. So this group provide a space to test idea and look for support and consensus 15:20:34 q+ 15:20:40 jtandy: my perspective. in addition to coordination, place to test 15:20:46 [the IG can help propose those ideas, align with OGC and help promote them. review which are ripe for going formal standards route] 15:21:04 q+ 15:21:07 jtandy: if nothing happen , chair will find people to work on 15:21:21 ack Christian_Elfers 15:22:21 Christian_Elfers: appologie for not attending for some year. as outside, see the work,specially BP, taking care of link technoloy and geospatial 15:22:45 Christian_Elfers: great if you could focus on those topic to be sure they fit. Lots of value from document 15:23:20 q+ 15:23:22 billroberts has joined #sdw 15:23:23 Christian_Elfers: Has to be concrete. has to be useful, covers both worlds. no example in mind, but there must be thousands 15:23:47 q? 15:23:48 jtandy: This is about identifying a product 15:23:54 ack ssimmons 15:24:40 ssimmons: one of the way we generate idea is innovation program, become IE, pilot. Idea are put in git, everyone can comment. sponsor look at issues and propose pilots 15:25:20 ssimmons: maybe this group could consider issues. AR is sitting in there waitinh 15:25:28 jtandy: More of coordination. 15:25:56 ssimmons: explain how to issue are significant to generate more activity 15:26:06 boyan: more down the road investment 15:26:21 q? 15:26:32 ssimmons: majority are funded because someone has an idea and someone wants to fund it. 15:26:41 ack josephabhayaratna 15:26:52 boyan : still time need to evaluate issues 15:27:56 josephabhayaratna: lots of issues from pilot and potentially look through lenses of wfs. More a case of review of documentation and responding to issues 15:28:07 ssimmons: good job Joe 15:28:16 q? 15:28:30 josephabhayaratna: hard to follow audio (greenwood: i share your pain) 15:29:11 ssimmons: on the tracker, involve people to comment , throught the lense of wfs. 78 open issues 15:29:18 q? 15:29:21 jtandy: ask to put url in minutes 15:29:25 OGC Innovation Program ideas issue tracker: https://github.com/opengeospatial/ideas/issues 15:30:37 jtandy:ask we migth go about activities. 3 types of activities. 1: coordinating between OGC W3C. 2: provide space to share early ideas. 3: proactively review issues on tracker 15:30:58 jtandy: from W3C perspective: strategy funnel is equivalent 15:31:35 jtandy: what kind of group needs to do that. OGC staff activity ? ssimmons agrees 15:32:10 jtandy: push to OAB . cross view of all sort of things. they are informing the TC. Good place, but not much resource 15:32:32 ssimmons: quarterly SDW discussion in the OAB 15:32:48 ted: can be the conduit on W3C side 15:33:06 jtandy: OAB, here the list of things we consider 15:33:27 jtandy: On W3C : tag group. they meet monthly. 15:33:43 ted: meet bi-weekly. 3 or 4 F2F 15:33:54 jtandy: by teleconf 15:34:21 jtandy: fold in Geosemantic group ? thing could be spun up in GS group (same people in both group) 15:34:34 s/meet bi-weekly/unsure, either monthly or bi-weekly by phone and 3-4 f2f a year/ 15:34:40 jtandy: fourth option: entirely new group 15:34:48 boyan: 2 model. coordinating and model 15:35:31 jtandy: if we want to build product, we need a group to do that. SWG, DWG or join, I am not seeing a significant group to contribute 15:35:54 boyan: in term of ref. you don't want to exclude 15:36:00 q+ 15:36:07 jtandy: chart for 2 year. If you spot something, chart it 15:36:18 ssimmons: that what we would do 15:36:50 jtandy: how much support you would give to someone with new idea. But you right, need charter, etc.. but no product identified yet 15:37:31 linda: unless geosparql update, it's OGC , logical to remain OGC, but not required 15:37:45 boyan: exposure of W3C brings a lot 15:38:21 billroberts: as long a skill in OGC ok, but lots of ontology in W3C 15:38:32 boyan: some work in W3C is not happening here 15:38:53 jtandy: you'd need to create a charter and a that point anyway 15:39:03 linda: interest group, not doing standard 15:40:02 jtandy: Can go join group again and benefit 15:40:39 jtandy: IF there is support in both camps, or just one, to put time and product, it will fly. But we don't have so far. Need to create a new SWG 15:41:12 boyan: confused. 2 or 3 activities part of this group, product oriented. GeoSparl, Sensors, .. 15:41:26 boyan: matchmaking and work will be done anyway ? 15:42:24 [incidentally we are using SSN in the vehicle signals ontology VSSo] 15:42:50 jtandy: geoparql update : just incubating and pushed on geosemantic as best place. SSN , we puiblished a note, extension, no standard 15:43:01 ssimmons: OGC discussion paper like 15:43:16 boyan: if we are just coordinating, need to push elsewhere 15:43:26 jtandy: agree. it's been pulling teeth. 15:43:50