Link to https://github.com/opengeospatial/CRS-Deformation-Models ?

[dblodgett-usgs]

I'm having a hard time understanding how this work relates to the CRS-Deformation-Models work. That github describes a relation ship to this work but it is not clearly illustrated. Can clarity on the relationship between this work and the "functional model" being developed there be made in the README here?

[ccrook]

Hi Dave. It is a fortuitous marriage of circumstance. By chance these two work streams have come to the fore at the same time. The work is of interest to the same communities so most of the team members are common to both tasks. On a more practical level the requirements of encoding a deformation model are the most demanding in the domain that GGXF is intended to cover (gridded geodetic data used in coordinate transformations), so to meet that use case the GGXF team needed to be aware of the direction of the deformation model development. Conversely the deformation model abstract specification is of little value without a suitable encoding format, which that team is looking to GGXF to provide. Hence the non-intuitive collaboration. But I think that may be too much information for the README. I've reworded it a little to indicate the nature of the collaboration.

[dblodgett-usgs]

Thanks. This helps from a practical perspective. I think what I'm still missing is how this relates to specific OGC community process. It seems that the CRS SWG charter is what this work is actually building from but everything I see if just a reference back to the DWG.

In all the work I've done on these kinds of projects, a Domain Working Group has to start a somewhat formal project with a charter or activity plan and work through a process that's well formed relative to that project. Otherwise, it's just not clear how people should engage and how decisions are being made.

Based on the charter for the CRS SWG, this work is a component of that team's work and it seems that the material in this repository should be described as such and be operated as a SWG.

That would mean that the work would be described as:

Standards Working Groups (SWG) have specific charter of working on a candidate standard prior to approval as an OGC standard or on making revisions to an existing OGC standard.

per (https://www.ogc.org/projects/groups/swg)

If this work is really just an ad-hoc DWG activity, it would be describable as:

Domain Working Groups (DWG or WG) provide a forum for discussion of key interoperability requirements and issues, discussion and review of implementation specifications, and presentations on key technology areas relevant to solving geospatial interoperability issues.

per (https://www.ogc.org/projects/groups/wg)

That said, I get the sense that what's actually being done here is more of an Interoperability Experiment.

An Interoperability Experiment (IE) is an initiative primarily led and executed by OGC members and facilitated by OGC staff. IEs, located at a rather wide span of TRL 3-7, have technical objectives that furthers OGC innovation by addressing requirements identified by members.

per (https://portal.ogc.org/files/?artifact_id=92756#InteroperabilityExperiments)

In which case, I would expect to see a charter / activity plan that clarifies what the goals and expected process for achieving those goals is.

Sorry to pile all this on, but if this work is going to make it into a Standard it needs to be clear how it relates to a SWG and if it's going to be published as an Engineering Report, it is really in the group's interest to clarify how the work is being run with a little more clarity.

[ccrook]

Glad to help from a practical persepective. I'm afraid that is the most I can offer. I know that you have raised questions of procedure and I understood that this has been checked and with those more deeply involved in OGC procedures. I have no experience so will leave that for others to respond to. I have no experience in that area - the practical perspective is very much where my experience and motivation lies!

[dblodgett-usgs]

That's fair and I appreciate your follow up here. I guess @RogerLott is the person who would be able to speak to the DWG/SWG arrangement?

[RogerLott]

v1.0 document now at https://github.com/opengeospatial/CRS-Gridded-Geodetic-data-eXchange-Format/blob/master/specification/GGXF%20v1-0%20OGC-22-051_full.pdf with version in OGC standards wrapper to be posted to pending shortly. Material will be presented to next CRS DWG meeting for approval to move to CRS SWG which has already been chartered to produce a standard. SWG recommendation to proceed with normal standard adoption process (OAB review, thirty day comment period, respond to comments, TC adoption) to be sought.