-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
Minutes
It was pointed out to me that I have to change the access configuration to the GoToMeeting recordings to be more restrictive. Thus I'm discontinuing the minutes here and will instead upload the recordings to the OGC portal.
- WCS 2.1 schemas (see mail from Gobe with subject "[WCS.swg] WCS and CIS schemas changes ready for review" from May 1st)
- OAPI Coverages
- Status Open Actions
- AOB
- Next meeting on July 15th, 9am EDT / 3pm CEST
Amy, Chris, Chuck, Gobe, Jerome, Peter, Stephan
None
- Finalize draft Coverages SWG Charter (https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc_api_coverages/blob/Charter/charter/OGC-Coverages-SWG-Charter.adoc)
- Vote on recommending the draft charter to the TC for a TC electronic vote
- OAPI Coverages
- Status Open Actions
- AOB
- Next meeting on July 8th, 9am EDT / 3pm CEST
Amy, Chuck, Jerome, Peter, Stephan
Motion: The WCS SWG recommends the draft charter (https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc_api_coverages/blob/master/charter/OGC-Coverages-SWG-Charter.adoc) to the TC for a TC electronic vote Moved: Stephan Second: Peter Discussion: Pending final edits Result: Passed with NOTUC
- SM: Inform OGC staff about draft charter motion and ask Greg where and how to release it
- Joint editing of the draft charter
Chuck, Gobe, James, Peter, Stephan
- Finalize vote on WCS 2.1 schemas (see mail from Gobe with subject "[WCS.swg] WCS and CIS schemas changes ready for review" from May 1st)
- OAPI Coverages
- Vote on way forward with draft OGC API - Coverages SWG Charter (https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc_api_coverages/blob/master/charter/OGC-API-Coverages-SWG-Charter.adoc)
- Collections Discussion (https://github.com/opengeospatial/oapi_common/issues/140)
- Status of planned sprints
- Identify and assign next steps
- Status Open Actions
- AOB
- Next meeting on July 1st, 9am EDT / 3pm CEST
Amy, Chris, Chuck, Gobe, Kevin, Pete, Peter, Tom, Stephan
None
- WCS 2.1 schemas - potential vote (see mail from Gobe with subject "[WCS.swg] WCS and CIS schemas changes ready for review" from May 1st)
- OAPI Coverages
- Draft OGC API - Coverages SWG Charter (https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc_api_coverages/blob/master/charter/OGC-API-Coverages-SWG-Charter.adoc)
- Determine implications of OGC API - Common - Part 2 (https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc_api_coverages/issues/64)
- Collections Discussion (https://github.com/opengeospatial/oapi_common/issues/140)
- Status of planned sprints
- Identify and assign next steps
- Status Open Actions
- AOB
- Next meeting on June 24th, 9am EDT / 3pm CEST
Asmund, Greg, Keith, Gobe, Chuck, George, Amy, Jerome, Tom, Dough, Peter (from 9am), Stephan
Decision about WCS 2.1 schemas deferred by one week to give Peter and Pete who volunteered to review the changes enough time to review it.
Charter: Discussion about re-chartering or forming a new SWG New SWG: Longer process (3 months) during which WCS SWG would continue to work on OAPICov Re-charter: Need to take on old WCS & extensions work A motion for re-chartering was made.
Invitation to attend the OGC-NA session next Friday, 3am EDT.
- SM: Send re-chartering motion to WCS SWG
- OAPI Coverages
- Determine implications of OGC API - Common - Part 2 (https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc_api_coverages/issues/64)
- Collections Discussion (https://github.com/opengeospatial/oapi_common/issues/140)
- Draft OGC API - Coverages SWG Charter (https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc_api_coverages/blob/master/charter/OGC-API-Coverages-SWG-Charter.adoc)
- Status of planned sprints
- Identify and assign next steps
- WCS 2.1 schemas - finalization (see mail from Gobe with subject "[WCS.swg] WCS and CIS schemas changes ready for review" from May 1st)
- Status Open Actions
- AOB
- Next meeting on June 10th in frame of the TC meeting
Chris, Chuck, Gobe (2nd half), Jerome, Peter V., Tom, Stephan
None
- WCS 2.1 schemas - e-mail vote until May 29 (see mail from Gobe with subject "[WCS.swg] WCS and CIS schemas changes ready for review" from May 1st)
- OAPI Coverages planning
- Discuss proposal from Jerome to move /all directly under /{coverageid}
- Status of planned sprints
- Identify and assign next steps
- Status Open Actions
- CoverageJSON work item draft - Chris
- Abstract Topic 6 (= ISO 19123-1) work item draft - Peter
- SWG info harmonization - Stephan
- Liaison with ISO: Raise issue with OAB to liaise with CRS SWG and others - George
- AOB
- Next meeting on June 3rd
Gobe, Jerome, Tom, Stephan
Jerome volunteered to work an a pull request to fully incorporate the discussed OAPI Common Part 2 Collections. See https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc_api_coverages/issues/64 for details and discussion.
- Jerome: Work on #64
- WCS 2.1 schemas - 3 week review period closing on May 22 (see mail from Gobe with subject "[WCS.swg] WCS and CIS schemas changes ready for review" from May 1st)
- OAPI Coverages planning
- Merge open pull requests
- Status of planned sprints
- Identify and assign next steps
- Status Open Actions
- Check how OGC can help facilitate the ESIP sponsorship - Gobe
- CoverageJSON work item draft - Chris
- Abstract Topic 6 (= ISO 19123-1) work item draft - Peter
- SWG info harmonization - Stephan
- Liaison with ISO: Raise issue with OAB to liaise with CRS SWG and others - George
- AOB
- Next meeting on May 27th
Gobe, Jerome, Chuck, Tom, Chris, Aleksandar, Stephan
WCS 2.1 schemas: Send email vote asking for objection to unanimous consent. Proposed to reduce the voting period to 1 week given that there were 3 weeks of review period.
Status of planned sprints
- Gobe: ESIP sprint is not confirmed yet. Potential funding for participants? It is not in line with ESIP RfP. There is maybe a possibility in the frame of an OGC innovation event.
- Tom: OSGeo Community Sprint is possibly happening in November. Worst case is March 2021.
- Gobe: There will be an OGC sprint that Coverages could join before November.
- Stephan: Initiate email vote for WCS 2.1 schemas
- WCS 2.1 schemas (see mail from Gobe with subject "[WCS.swg] WCS and CIS schemas changes ready for review" from May 1st)
- OAPI Coverages planning
- Status of planned sprints
- Identify and assign next steps
- Status Open Actions
- CoverageJSON work item draft - Chris
- Abstract Topic 6 (= ISO 19123-1) work item draft - Peter
- SWG info harmonization - Stephan
- Liaison with ISO: Raise issue with OAB to liaise with CRS SWG and others - George
- AOB
- Next meeting on May 20th
Gobe, Jerome, Stephan
Gobe
- Possible OGC-ESIP Sprint is under discussion with ESIP.
- Consider applying at https://www.esipfed.org/lab/funding-opportunities/2020springrfp
Steps
- Get document into a coherent state
- Identify issues and areas that need to be improved in document (https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc_api_coverages/projects/1)
- Revise draft while maintaining consistency
- Iterate above points
- Gobe: Check how OGC can help facilitate the ESIP sponsorship
- All: Define next steps needed and planning to being able to recommend OAPI Coverages draft for public RFC
- WCS 2.1 schemas (see mail from Gobe with subject "[WCS.swg] WCS and CIS schemas changes ready for review" from May 1st)
- OAPI Coverages planning
- OAPI Common (collections, etc.) - I hope somebody will be there to report from the common meetings.
- Status of planned sprints
- Next steps
- Status Open Actions
- CoverageJSON work item draft - Chris
- Abstract Topic 6 (= ISO 19123-1) work item draft - Peter
- SWG info harmonization - Stephan
- Liaison with ISO: Raise issue with OAB to liaise with CRS SWG and others - George
- AOB
- Next meeting will be on May 13th 2020 at 10am EDT / 4pm CEST
Chris, Gobe, Jerome, Tom, Stephan
OAPI Common is now split in:
- Part 1: Core
- Part 2: Collections
- Part 3: CRS
EDR decided to steam ahead with their definition of Collections.
- Gobe: Check about current planning of anticipated June sprint
- All: Define next steps needed and planning to being able to recommend the OAPI Coverages draft for public RFC
- Issues with WCS 2.1 schemas OGC staff discovered a number of issues with the WCS 2.1 schemas that were submitted by the WCS SWG Please review https://portal.ogc.org/files/?artifact_id=92867&version=1 ahead of the teleconference
- OAPI Coverages progress
- AOB
Aleksandar, Gobe, Jerome, Peter, Tom, Stephan
Gobe presented 40 issues identified by Kevin (https://portal.ogc.org/files/?artifact_id=92989)
Discussion about Changes:
- Typos
- Namespace
- Peter: Believe OGC-NA should mandate or assign namespaces.
- Technical points
- To be discussed via GitHub as proposed by Gobe
Motion to approve process proposed for resolving issues affecting the WCS 2.1 schemas
The WCS SWG approves the process described below for resolving issues affecting the WCS 2.1 schemas.
- OGC staff create a private Github/Gitlab repo containing the schema files and examples.
- Changes are made to the schema files and examples in a separate Git branch
- Pull Request is created when a group of files have been edited
- Pull Request is reviewed by the SWG for up to one week a. If there are no objections, the Pull Request is approved b. If there are objections, a SWG telecon is called to discuss the objection We iterate step 2, 3 and 4 until all of the schema files and examples have been revised where necessary. Motion: Peter Second: Stephan Discussion: None Result: NOTUC
- Gobe: Initiate GitHub/Gitlab repository
- Status update of ongoing OGC API – Coverages work
- Proposed CoverageJSON work item
- Liaison with ISO: Status and planning
- AOB
see OGC portal
- Action S. Meißl to organize May sprint
- Action G. Percivall to explore July sprint options
- Action M. Hedley to update GitHub CoverageJSON repository in OGC organization with latest draft
- Action C. Little to draft work item description based on motion from Singapore TC
- Action S. Meißl to talk to TC chair to harmonize WCS SWG, name, charter, and work items
- Action P. Baumann to draft work item description for Abstract Topic 6 (= ISO 19123-1)
- Action G. Percivall to raise issue with OAB to liaise with CRS SWG and others
- Action M. Hedley to draft mail to inform CRS SWG, in particular R. Lott
- EDR Sprint
- AOB
Chuck, Chris, Peter, Stephan
Chris: Explains objectives of EDR API. The SWG is currently working on a first draft version. Stephan: Clarifies the intention of the EDR API Sprint mail targeting the EDR Sprint end of March. The intention is not impose OAPI-Coverages on the EDR API nor to say that OAPI-Coverages is frozen, finalized or anything the like. The EDR Sprint participants should just be aware of the OAPI-Coverages and it is brought to their attention nor normative nor complete.
- SM: Write conclusions as follow up to email thread
- Work on current specification
- AOB
Chuck, Jerome, Stephan
- OAPI Common is released for public RFC with a special mention of a couple of issues like https://github.com/opengeospatial/oapi_common/issues/86
- OAPI Features - CRS extension is also soon released for public RFC Question: Should it go to common? Coverages would use it in its own conformance class.
- Agreed to switch from local schemas to references to online CIS 1.1 but only if the asciidoc rendering doesn't break
- Jerome pointed to https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/issues/256
- SM: Write to Greg to adjust cronjob/script that generates and publishes HTML/PDF
- GH: Check if OGC has/can have a SwaggerHub account
- Final ESIP - OGC Sprint preparation
- AOB
Chuck, George, Gobe, Richard, Stephan
- SM: Make sure Readme.md is in sync with spec. Add note that Readme.md is informative and spec is authoritative source.
- SM: Write to Greg to adjust cronjob/script that generates and publishes HTML/PDF
- SM: Add link to Sentinel dataset to sprint repository and send note to gitter channel; link to EDC / Sentinel Hub
- GH: Check if OGC has/can have a SwaggerHub account
- All: Please help triaging open issues
- ESIP - OGC Sprint preparation
- Pull requests review
- Issue triage https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc_api_coverages/projects/1
- AOB
Chuck, Gobe, Jerome, Stephan
- Agreed on a final meeting ahead of the sprint on January 3rd 2020 at 8am EST 2pm CET
- All: Please help triaging open issues
- ESIP - OGC Sprint preparation
- PR "README Incorporated"
- Issue triage https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc_api_coverages/projects/1
- AOB
Chris, Chuck, Gobe, Jerome, Peter, Richard, Shane, Steve, Stephan
- Do we need coverageType along itemType on collection level?
- /coverage shall be minimal but include envelope and rangeType but not the full domainSet. In general reuse what we hat in capabilities documents for a coverage.
- Shall subsetting be part of core or a conformance class of its own?
- All: Please help triaging open issues
- Stephan: Update swagger hub definitions to provide schemas to Chuck (try to include examples), ask for help by Joan if needed
- OGC API - Features Part 2 CRS - Chris Little
- ESIP - OGC Sprint preparation
- Issue triage https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc_api_coverages/projects/1
- AOB
Aleksandar, Chris, Chuck, Jerome, Richard, Stephan
- OGC API - Features Part 2 CRS - Chris Little
- Features core and common default always to CRS84, e.g., bbox
- 3 different use cases where the CRS is used
- filter/query
- output
- default
- In coverages distinguish between filtering and subsetting
- Chuck:
bbox
andtime
should be usable on/coverage
. Hopefully it is sufficient as currently defined in common. - Discussion about tiling and paging
- ESIP - OGC Sprint preparation
- Three use cases
- Invited to bring forward use case
- All: Please help triaging open issues
- ESIP - OGC Sprint preparation
- AOB
Gobe, Jerome, Peter, Stephan
- Added issue to collect points for Common (https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc_api_coverages/issues/30)
-
http://acme.com/oapi/collections/{collectionid}/coverage
agreed to return general description including envelope instead of domainset, rangetype, native format, etc. -
http://acme.com/oapi/collections/{collectionid}/coverage/all
agreed to return whole coverage including domainset, etc. of course supporting additional parameters -
http://acme.com/oapi/coverage
agreed to be removed - Peter: Include link to Coverages DWG Wiki page. Discussion about removing link to https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-bp/#coverages as proposed by Peter and objected by Stephan.
- The plan for next week is to organize the remaining issues on the GitHub project
- All: Review and comment on issues
see https://portal.opengeospatial.org/?m=projects&a=view&project_id=263&tab=7
- All: Review and contribute issues and requirements
see https://portal.opengeospatial.org/?m=projects&a=view&project_id=263&tab=7
- All: Review and contribute issues and requirements
- OGC API Hackathon preparation (http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/initiatives/oapihackathon19)
- OGC API Coverages (https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc_api_coverages) draft specification
- AOB
Chuck, Eugene, James, Joan, Stephan
- Discussion about using SwaggerHub like for Map Tiles -> recommendation from API Common (cf. section 6)
- Fabian from EOX has started for coverages at https://app.swaggerhub.com/apis/constantinius/ogc-api-coverages/1.0.0
- Stephan informs that there are resources reserved on the Azure cloud provided by ordnance survey for the WCS SWG
- Agreed to leave teleconference next week scheduled in case it is needed but likely it will be canceled as most of us will be traveling
- Chuck: Build GitHub project following the example of API Common
- Stephan: Add tags to GitHub issues (e.g. Hackathon) and organize in the project built by Chuck following the example of API Common
- Stephan: Prepare slides about open points for discussion with API Common at the hackathon
- All: Prepare and get ready for the hackathon next week
- OGC API Hackathon
- Objectives and how to define success
- Agenda linked at http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/initiatives/oapihackathon19
- OGC API Coverages (https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc_api_coverages) draft specification
- AOB
Amy, Chris, Chuck, Eugene, Gobe, Stephan
- How do we define success for the Hackathon? The groups common understanding of the main objectives is to get consensus that OpenAPI is the right way to go for the next generation of OGC standards and to factor out commonalities in OGC API Common which all groups agree to use.
- Gobe: Key points are
- OpenAPI
- in line with WFS 3
- make specs consistent
- Hackathon focus on testable and implementable
- Chuck: Regarding scope, currently OpenAPI is the only definition language we're using but there might be others in future
- Gobe: The agenda does not focus on Common, it has both splitting into teams (resource specific) as well as common
- boundary between common and resource specific
- what should be optional in common
- Chuck: common defines mechanisms that can be used if needed but don't have to be used
- Additionally the idea was brought forward to have a break-out session to harmonize by looking at overlaps and commonalities between building blocks, i.e., coverages, features, and common.
- The agenda is flexible and up to the SWG chairs to coordinate and organize ad-hoc sessions
- 2 times 10 people in board room; event space 50 people sitting at desks; social space/kitchen with probably 4 tables
- possible configurations
- 10, 10, 25, 25
- 10, 10, 50
- 20, 25, 25
- possible configurations
- Gobe: Please fill in form if you need space on provided infrastructure https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1HH_Lbnx797yGWWn5xBcCrVF0sWbcqbsn5fsYtYwGsO8
- Stephan: Fill in form for resources on behalf of the WCS SWG
- All: Review and contribute issues and requirements
- Hackathon objectives
- OGC API Coverages - https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc_api_coverages
- AOB
Amy, Chris, Michael, Eugene, Paul, Peter, Stephan
- Chris informs that the Met-Office is going to be at the hackathon and will provide/bring multidimensional data and service
- Known participants are
- Met-Office
- National Weather Service
- Ordnance survey
- OpenEO
- Sinergise
- Jacobs University/rasdaman
- EOX
- There is space for a maximum of 70 participants and twice as much are on the waiting list
- Chris raises the question how success is defined for the hackathon.
-
Michael emphasized to define a mission like Chris Holmes did for WFS and STAC.
-
Chris: Indication if WFS 3 is going the right direction. Build suite of APIs that are consistent. Met-Ocean hackathon in December in Washington based on WFS. Coverages are only for GeoSpatial experts.
-
Stephan: This is a first hackathon in a series with focus on Common. Personal objective to make it way easier for client implementers.
-
Chris: UK Gov OpenAPI initiative API guidance is that they all should be based on OpenAPI 3.0 - https://github.com/alphagov/open-standards/issues/31#issuecomment-493437352
-
The groups common understanding of the main objectives is to get consensus that OpenAPI is the right way to go for the next generation of OGC standards and to factor out commonalities in OGC API Common which all groups agree to use.
-
- Michael introduces his view on OGC Next Generation APIs. He will put the diagram on GitHub.
- Peter suggests a break-out session to harmonize by looking at overlap, commonalities between building blocks, i.e., coverages, features, and common.
- Stephan: Send mail to Gobe to ask about objectives and invite to next week's meeting
- Michael: Put shown diagram on GitHub
- All: Review and contribute issues and requirements
- OGC API Coverages - https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc_api_coverages
- AOB
Chuck, Eugene, Jürgen, Peter, Stephan S.
- We only had a brief general discussion mainly about API Common and usage of IDs
- Chuck: Check definition for IDs #19. Do we break OpenAPI when using IRIs as defined in RFC3987?
- All: Review and contribute issues and requirements
- OGC API Coverages - https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc_api_coverages
- Weekly meeting time slot
Chuck, Eugene, Joan, Peter, Stephan S., Stephan M.
- Weekly meeting time slot moved to Wednesday 10am EDT / 4pm CEST
- Stephan introduces new wiki page capturing minutes
- We reviewed some issues and try to close them
- All: Review and contribute issues and requirements
- OGC API Coverages - https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc_api_coverages
Amy, Chuck, Eugene, Paul, Peter, Stephan
- Chuck presents changes made to the GitHub repository
- got rid of distracting stuff, e.g. removed OAPI-Common directory
- requirements directory
- is the only normative part
- they are included in clause 7
- examples directory
- are important to see how the requirements are actually implemented
- again included in clause 7
- for the hackathon clause 7 is the most important one
- anything not specific to coverages should probably be in common
- don't waste time on it
- tie back to common via requirements class
- everything needed for functional complete implementation should go in core, everything else in extensions
- pattern for extensions
- top level directory for each along OAPI-Coverages
- naming convention will be in mail from Clemens soon, following ISO nomenclature
- focus on getting requirements written
- Stephan introduces new wiki page capturing decisions
- We review some issues and try to close them
- Chuck: Write some notes about structure and next steps up in the wiki
- All: Review and contribute issues and requirements