<scribe> scribenick: ted
<scribe> Scribe: Ted
<jtandy_> hi folks- I'm struggling to connect to the webex session. Will try a different device ...
<jtandy_> * get started ... I'll be with you in a moment
Linda: Jeremy, Ted and I worked
on the charter, currently happy with that
... W3C TPAC already underway
<jtandy_> * hooray - I'm in the WebEx and can hear Linda talking
Linda: will discuss our plans there and as Jo and Ed for update on their responsible use work
<Scott_Simmons> 0
Jeremy: anyone have a chance to
read through the charter yet?
... a fair amount of the charter is boilerplate
... remember when we were a Working Group first? we pivoted to
a more incubator role as an Interest Group and still intend to
as we switch back to Working Group
... we listed six bullet points we felt cover the general scope
of this group
<billroberts> charter looks good to me +1
<eparsons> +1 Like coordination as main function
Jeremy: please read through them and ask questions or make comments
<RobSmith_> +1
<PeterR> +1
<jvanulde> +1
<Scott_Simmons> +1
<josepha> +1
Ed: is it alright to have some aspects loosely defined?
Jeremy: reminds me of JWOC
Ted: open question first from to our Strategy Team and now raised to management since I do not have a clear answer
Scott: question is can this group
create standards on its own or does it need to work with
appropriate group in OGC
... want to avoid potential conflicts from disconnects. we need
to be careful and have governance for overlap work
Jeremy: have all the various W3C SDW stanardards also been published as OGC specs?
Scott: yes based on our policies but should be made cleaner in the future
Jeremy: can this be solved by utilizing or creating proxy groups?
Scott: we need clear group ownership
Ed: the domain Working Group can
hand off to appropriate SWIG
... you usually have to get deep in the details for the actual
standards, far below where a coordination group would
operate
... domain WG on OGC side natural fit
... last WG was more task oriented with time constraints, it
was more focused and maybe not as appropriate now
... we need to describe what we will do differently
Jeremy: so on W3C side we agree WG is the right choice, sounds like more refinement preferred on OGC side starting with domain WG and then hand off to appropriate standards group
Ed: yes, W3C IG similar to OGC domain WG and W3C WG an OGC SDWIG
Scott: we would want to identify or spin up appropriate group on OGC side
Jeremy: sounds like we need to do some chartering work on OGC side
Ed: interested in Linda's thoughts. previously she saw alignment with geosemantics
<jtandy_> * PeterR - I see you on the queue ... coming to you next
<PeterR> thanks!
Linda: interesting as I am chairing that as well and wonder which topics belong where or both
Jo: not everything will align
with Geosemantics, responsible use will not for example
... not sure how strict we need to be on alignment
Scott: initially W3C SDWWG operated under the Geosemantics SWIG
Peter: at the recent maps for the
web workshop, I brokered a meeting between KDDI and tiling
activity chair Gobe
... they want to coordinate through this group but neither are
here so wanted to raise it
Jeremy: that is another example
of coordination more than standards
... sounds like we need to update our charter on OGC side
then
Scott: you need to make a new
charter, submit it to members for a few weeks and then put to
simple yes/no vote
... as it is continuation of existing work can keep it
simple
Proposal: OGC will treat SDW group as a coordination body under Geosemantics SWIG
<jtandy_> * coordination body?
Ed suggests broadening Geosematics group
Ed: it is more a case of communicating a broader scope than currently set, again responsible use doesn't fall into it
Jeremy: Linda and Jo can take away Geosematics scope work and I will work with Scott
Proposal: OGC will treat SDW group as a coordination body under Geosemantics SWIG
Bill: I do not feel I have a right to vote on this as I am not part of OGC
Jeremy: what we are really doing is making a recommendation to OGC
Proposal: OGC will treat SDW group as a coordination body under Geosemantics SWIG
<Scott_Simmons> "subgroup" is the official OGC term for the coordination body, so: "OGC will treat SDW group as a subgroup acting as a coordination body under Geosemantics DWG"
Proposal: OGC will treat SDW group as a subgroup under Geosemantics SWIG
<jtandy_> +1
<RobSmith_> +1
<Scott_Simmons> +1
<eparsons> +1
<billroberts> +1
<josepha> +1
<brinkwoman> +1
<jvanulde> +1
<Scott_Simmons> some of us refer to these types of sentence as "pedantic semantics"
<PeterR> +1
RESOLUTION: SDW group will ask OGC to be treated as a subgroup under Geosemantics DWG
<scribe> ACTION: Linda and Jo to discuss broadening scope in Geosemantics DWG
<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
<scribe> ACTION: Linda, Jeremy and Scott to complete rechartering of SDW on OGC side
<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
Jeremy: back to charter, I need to confirm with Simon if he wants the Time extensions to be under formal REC track
[reviews rest of deliverables]
Jeremy: are you satisfied with WebVMT text, and Ed and Jo on responsibe data use?
Rob: yes
Ed: it goes beyond ethics
Jeremy: please provide us revised
text
... Rob, what do you see for timeline?
Rob: good question, have a
roadmap but not a schedule
... will give it more thought
Jeremy: we have a long list of
coordination groups, may not be exhaustive so do please read
through those and if you identify something missing let us
know
... one of the actions is clarification on licensing as
outlined in charter
Ted: open question I raised, in practice specs have been published with both
Scott: we have noticed those specs do not link to our copyright notice
Linda: Rob wanted to take a few minutes to discuss his WebVMT breakout topic
Rob: follow up on what I
presented previously, sync with video, interpolation...
... hope to get feedback and agreement on draft of WebVMT
... seeking input from moving features and sensors
... also reaching out to external companies like ESRI and GoPro
to see if we can get any interest from them
<scribe> … new proposal allows for GeoJSON encapsulation
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: I want to invite participation from this group
<Zakim> jtandy_, you wanted to ask about 3D coordinates
Jeremy: using GeoJSON you stuck
with 2D coordinates whereas you have drones that fly...
... is OGC dealing with GeoPose?
Rob: yes, I am considering GeoPose feature within WebVMT, should be lightweight but if more is required embed within JSON
Jeremy: belive you requested feedback by a week from Friday
Linda: do you know yet when your session will be?
Rob: I don't believe the planning session is Wednesday
Jeremy: SDW IG break out planning
is mostly about getting wider attention from W3C audience on
what we are doing
... review charter proposal and maybe short presentations on
different work
... we can raise as a github issue like Rob did and review by
next Friday
Ted encourages Ed and Jo to have a breakout on responsible data use
Ed: I could see getting feedback useful
Peter: we want to have an outline or draft to present on maps workshop report by then
This is scribe.perl Revision of Date Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/ccccccekvethfhcrrrljdbhbcegtvjletvfutfhlle// Succeeded: s/@@@/coordination body/ Succeeded: s/SWIG/DWG/ Succeeded: s/Rob: /Jeremy: / Succeeded: s/present a/present on/ Present: Bill Ed Edd Linda Peter Rob Scott Scott_Simmons Ted billroberts josepha jtandy Joost PeterR eparsons Found ScribeNick: ted Found Scribe: Ted Inferring ScribeNick: ted Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdwig/2020Oct/0030.html WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 People with action items: jeremy jo linda scott WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]