search

opengeospatial / CoverageJSON

Public repo for CoverageJSON project
Apache License 2.0
10 stars 8 forks source link

PC01: Without prior motion nor discussion in the Coverages WG #4

Closed chris-little closed 3 years ago

chris-little commented 3 years ago

Comment, 25 June 2021:

chris-little commented 3 years ago
  1. Standardisation of CoverageJSON was presented and agreed at the 2019 Leuven TC, and the WCS SWG offered to host the work, rather than establish a separate SWG.
  2. When the Coverages SWG was re-chartered in 2020 for the API work, the standardisation of CoverageJSON was retained in the work plan of the SWG.
  3. The current focus of the Coverages SWG is developing the API-Coverages, and correcting CIS for consistency. The SWG seemed unlikely to tackle the CoverageJSON work item for serveral months or longer.
  4. In 2021, the OGC Staff suggested a way forward was CoverageJSON as a Community Standard. This was proposed and agreed at 2021-06 TC Plenary after an internal comment period.

Therefore, the Supporters reject unanimously the comment on the grounds that there has been prior motion and discussion.

chris-little commented 3 years ago

The initial push for standardisation of CoverageJSON was in 2018 from the joint OGC/W3C Spatial Data on the Web WG, when it was agreed: "1/ Align CovJSON with the conceptual model of coverages; OR 2/ Rename CovJSON (if we can’t align) to avoid confusion."

Note: This was before the founding of the EDR API SWG.

pebau commented 3 years ago

hm, is this a generally applicable pattern in OGC: to bypass a SWG in charge because "it is busy otherwise" ?

chris-little commented 3 years ago

@pebau There is no intention to `bypass a SWG'. The Community Standard process does not need a SWG or DWG - it needs the supporters to propose a document to OGC. Once the CoverageJSON document is an OGC document, some Coverage SWG members have agreed to work on a detailed comparison (Discussion Paper) and this should produce some well-founded recomendations for the way forward. That is up to the SWG. Meanwhile, CoverageJSON users are doing their own thing outwith OGC.

The group agreed that your original issueabove was addressed and could be closed.