Meeting minutes
Logistics
Koster: any cancellations we know of coming up?
Kaz: was conflict with Nordic CG on third monday of the month, so propose shifting this meeting to fourth month
… would like to confirm
McCool: I think you need to send an email for that, too
Kaz: did, so should do it again
McCool: next week DST will be done, finally
Koster: note April will have five Mondays, also
Kaz: should be April 21 :)
[ Kaz: Very sorry but apparently both I and Koster were a bit confused, and actually April 2025 has only four Mondays (=7, 14, 21 and 28). So the next meeting will be April 28 instead of April 21. ]
Minutes
Feb-17
<McCool> https://
Koster: (scans minutes, summarizes main points)
Koster: discussed logistics, including repo, deliverables
… reviewed charter
… resolution to create a repo, that has now been done
… for requirements, user story format suggested
Feb-18
<kaz> https://
Koster: this was more Asia-friendly timeslot
… however, we agreed going forward to combine meetings
… we have to generate a Team Report
McCool: is there a deadline for the Team Report/
Kaz: end of charter, July 2026, but good question; not tight, but we could define some milestones
Koster: can put it in the agenda for now; may also want to consider a White Paper
Kaz: I can create an initial schedule.md in the repo
Koster: ok, sure
ACTION: Kaz to create a schedule page on GitHub
Koster: convergence of grid; also saw this topic show up in meeting with Nordic CG
… converges with smart building topic, energy use, etc.
Koster: gap analysis would be useful
Koster: one pager
Koster: any update to the minutes? If not, I would like to propose we adopt and publish them.
Koster: ... no objections heard.
Koster: not sure where we put things like the gap document
McCool: suggest chairs should review the minutes before the meeting and add such things to the agenda
GitHub updates and resources
McCool: resources page:
… https://
Koster: list of relevant W3C and other groups
Koster: need to consider interoperability, e.g. for geolocation, datasets, etc; also privacy principles
McCool: need to better organize this; very long. Prioritize, group by categories?
Kaz: right. this big list was copied from the IG Charter, and we should think about priority categories first, then which group to be included in which category next
McCool: digital twin would be another category
… would require sensor data, etc.
… probably we need to clarify use cases as well
McCool: suggest we focus on digital twins, generate use cases, use that to prioritize
Kaz: may also be useful to look at external organizations first
McCool: starting with digital twin concept, we need to think about what kind of "modelling" we need
… e.g. geospatial data, relationships and entities (aka LD), time series and numerical data (e.g. IoT sensor data)
… and what "web" is used for e.g. visualization (webGPU, vector graphics, etc)
Kaz: right. reminded me of the great session about SVG Map for evacuation purposes during the AC2024 in Hiroshima.
Koster: issues like IoT interfaces, ontologies, etc.
McCool: I think we need a short list of high-level categories, maybe 5 or so, and organize things under that
Koster: what about standards?
McCool: SDOs work on lots of things, we should cite specific standards, not orgs...
Kaz: could create another md file for technology categories
… could think about which SDO is working on which categories
McCool: makes sense
Koster: good place to start
<kaz> technology-categories.md
Koster: as mm said, we need to pick a small number of "focus areas"
McCool: suggest we brainstorm right now in the PR, then people can comment offline
McCool: suggest create a PR so we can comment and propose updates
PR 1 - Update technology-categories.md
Kaz: let's continue the discussion on GitHub using the PR 1 above
… then we can talk about that during the next call
[adjourned]