<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

SDW Working Charter refresh

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

draft SDW charter

<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

TPAC planning and breakouts

Breakout groups

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.)