[georss] Geospatial Incubator Group

[Stefan F. Keller]

Good points, Dan, especially also about public discussions. Perhaps the link
to OGC's SensorWeb from Carl that immediately followed up your post can be
'opened' too?

Swoogle stats about "100 most common RDF namespaces" lists 'geo' (W3C)
currently at 7th place and 'georss' 45th:
http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/100-most-common-rdf-namespaces/

Stefan

2006/7/20, Dan Brickley <danbri at danbri.org>:
>
> Gregor J. Rothfuss wrote:
> > Mike Liebhold wrote:
> >
> >> If not, I am wondering how much visibility will non-member groups
> >> e.g. georss.org have on working drafts, and proposals circulated by
> >> 'members' within OGC and w3c working groups?
> >
> > amen. this reminds me of the discussions when the atom wg was formed and
> > ended up at the IETF due in no small part to it's open process.
>
> Before anyone gets too worked up about secrecy, member-only
> standards discussions, etc., it's maybe worth pointing out that the
> silly little wgs84-based "basic geo" lat/long namespace we made at W3C,
> was done as an informal collaboration amongst members of W3C's Semantic
> Web Interest Group, ie. amongst member of the public. The SWIG is a
> totally public group, based around the semantic-web at w3.org mailing list,
> but with a variety of other fora (including use of a public logged IRC
> channel, #swig on irc.freenode.net, where most of the geo: discussions
> were held).
>
> The new Geo Incubator group ('XG') at W3C also has a public mailing
> list, as well as a Member-only forum. For the XG to discuss things with
> Member-only W3C groups, eg. perhaps the Mobile Web guys, ... it's useful
> for them to have a Member-only mailing list. But to discuss things with
> the Semantic Web Interest Group, ... discussions need to be in public,
> because SWIG is a public participation forum. I'm suggestion, see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-geo/2006Jul/ ->
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-geo/2006Jul/0001.html
>
> The best way to keep these discussions public, is to show up on the
> public mailing lists offering useful contributions to the work (test
> cases, running code, documentation, review comments, etc.). In 6 years
> at W3C, I spent a good amount of time trying to nudge people to use
> public fora over closed ones. In the SW world, I think the argument is
> won: RDF and SemWeb discussions at W3C, for many years, have
> overwhelmingly been conducted on public lists. As chair of the SWIG and
> (current) editor of http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/ I'm excited to see
> this new group starting up, bringing new expertise and professionalism
> to the discussions. For this work to stay in touch with the SWIG, and
> other stakeholders in the current namespace, we need as much of these
> dicusssions as possible to stay in public. I'm sure at times there will
> be offlist threads, or threads within OGC and W3C Member fora, ... but I
> do hope they'll be a minority.
>
> BTW I have started an investigation into the current usage patterns of
> the w3c Geo namespace, see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2006Jul/0053.html ---
> we sohuld hopefully have some stats from the Swoogle soon... If folks
> have any more data or thoughts on gathering it, ... do please contrib to
> that thread.
>
> cheers,
>
> Dan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> georss mailing list
> georss at lists.eogeo.org
> http://lists.eogeo.org/mailman/listinfo/georss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.eogeo.org/pipermail/georss/attachments/20060827/62c2d70b/attachment.html