Opening Plenary 95th OGC Technical Committee Boulder, Colorado USA

Opening Plenary 95th OGC Technical Committee Boulder, Colorado USA
Scott Simmons 1 June 2015 Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium

Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium
Agenda Welcome: Dr. Lawrence Buja, Director Climate and Applications Program, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Rob Painter, Trimble James Rogers, Vice President Product Marketing, DigitalGlobe Proposed Standards Track for Technical Committee Policies and Procedures: Carl Reed and Scott Simmons Preview of the new OGC website: Denise McKenzie Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium

Congrats Thanks to all of you voting members of the TC. Our voting percentage has increased under the new P&P and the comments attached to votes (regardless of the vote) are very constructive. Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium

Welcome to Emma Simonis
Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium

OGC Multi-track Standards PnP: Overview
Carl Reed, PhD 15 April 2015 Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium

The Proposed Multi-Standards Track
Two points for entry Community Interface , Encoding, Protocol, and/or API Standard Full Standards track (2 stages) Provisional Standard Full Standard Community Standard Requires written justification for review by TC Requires TC approval to progress as CS. Provisional and Full Standards Same process as now! Just different names based on maturity (see next slides) Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium

Standards Track: characteristics
SWG Evidence Implem Modular Spec CITE Test OGC Template Public Comment OAB Review IPR to OGC Member Vote Community Specification NR* Strong! Partial Yes Yes (Note) Full Standard Track Provisional No Full standard NR – Not required. NOTE: IPT may be shared. Evaluated on a case by case basis Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium

Standards Track: Community Standard characteristics
Internally or externally developed Requirements do not need to be “formally” stated as in the case of using the OGC Modular Specification Use of OGC document template not mandatory but recommended CITE tests not required Must be widely implemented. There must be evidence!! Why? Promote innovation, engagement, community dialogue without the overhead associated with the Full standards process Can always move into Full Standards track. Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium

Community Standards: PnP Considerations
As with any official OGC document, shall have a submission team consisting of 3 or more OGC members, one member being a Technical, Principal, or Strategic member. Submission team shall notify TC Chair of intent to submit. TC Chair shall request submission team to write and submit justification as to why the document should be considered as a Community Standard Shall contain abstract Shall contain evidence of broad implementation Shall contain discussion on how the candidate community standard does (or does not) align with the OGC standards baseline. Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium

Community Standards: PnP Considerations
OGC Staff shall review the proposed submission and associated technical documentation and provide guidance as to whether using the community standard process is appropriate or not Once justification document is completed, TC Chair shall notify OGC membership of intent to submit and ask for comment and review. TC Voting Members approve (or not) submission and processing of the community spec into the OGC Community Standards track. Approval can be at a TC F2F or by electronic vote. Three week review period required regardless of approval process. Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium

RFC/Full standards track

Standards Track: Provisional Standard
Uses OGC document template Formally stated requirements as per the Modular Spec CITE tests not required May or may not have implementations Good starting point for new standards IPR transferred to the OGC Focus – Promote implementations if there are none (or few), gain community input and engagement, promote collaboration Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium

Standards Track: Full OGC Standard
Requirements clearly stated. Modular Spec followed. OGC document template used. Strong evidence of implementation CITE Tests Reference implementation(s) Focus – Rigorous, mature standard with all elements completed Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium

Discussion and Recommendations
Two tracks: Community and Full Be clear that all three document types are official OGC Standards Change name of Community Specification to Community Interface, Encoding, etc. Standard Recommendation that all new standards not submitted as Community Standards start as Provisional standards Hence, two tracks and not three tracks. Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium

Issues Need guidance on what OGC means by “Evidence of Implementation” Need agreed to approach of how to deal with existing OGC standards Recommendation is that all existing standards be initially labeled as Provisional and then evaluate each version of each standard in terms of whether there are CITE tests, whether the standard is broadly implemented, etc. Need easy to understand flow charts of process and relation to other OGC documents. Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium

Cases: Evidence of Implementation
Implementation by many vendors and user organizations. An example is GeoTIFF. Implementation in open source frameworks, such as pyCSW, but with no idea how many organizations have implemented the framework. Specification controlled by a single organization/vendor but implemented by three or more other organizations/vendors. An interesting side-issue of this case is when implementations are confidential or done in a classified environment so specific evidence cannot be shared! Specification controlled by single organization/vendor and there is only one implementation but thousands/millions of user instances of use on a daily basis. (KML is an example) Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium

Reference documents 15-009r1_OGC Multi Thread Standards Track overview Draft Community Standard Policies and Procedures Draft Checklist for Community Standard Uploaded May 6, 2015 Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium

OGC Document Process / flow slides

© 2015, Open Geospatial Consortium
White Paper Work Flow Submitted by OGC Staff, OGC Consultant, and/or OGC Members(s) White Paper Submitted To OGC Reviewed by Staff Post to Pending and Announce to members Yes OK For Release To Members? Members approve release? Any final edits No Yes No. Back to Submitters For more work No Release as White Paper © 2015, Open Geospatial Consortium

Typical Discussion Paper Work Flow
Submitted by OGC Members(s) Only Usually from member research activity outside of a test bed Document Submitted To OGC and posted to Pending Assigned to a TC WG by the TCC for discussion Presented and Discussed by WG at a TC Meeting Motion in TC Plenary for recommendation to PC Recommend to TC Recommend to PC for release Yes No No. Back to Submitters For more work No Yes PC Approves Publication as Discussion Paper Final Edits Yes No. Back to Submitters for more work No © 2015, Open Geospatial Consortium

Typical Discussion Engineering Report Work Flow
Submitted by OGC Members(s) Only. Always created as a deliverable in an OGC Interoperability Initiative Document Submitted To OGC and posted to Pending Assigned to a TC WG by the TCC for discussion Presented and Discussed by WG at a TC Meeting Motion in TC Plenary for recommendation to PC Recommend to TC Recommend to PC for release Yes No No. Back to Submitters For more work No Yes PC Approves Publication as An Engineering Report Final Edits Yes No. Back to Submitters for more work No © 2015, Open Geospatial Consortium

Typical Best Practices Paper Work Flow
Submitted by OGC Members(s) Only. Must have evidence of Implementation. Presented at TC Plenary for starting an e-vote Document Submitted To OGC and posted to Pending Reviewed by the TCC for completeness Discussed by WG at a TC Meeting TC vote to approve as BP No Yes Recommend to TC to have E-vote Yes PC Approval No No. Back to Submitters For more work Yes Yes OGC-NA Approval Publication as Best Practices Paper – Includes Press Release Final edits and review No. Back to Submitters For more work No © 2015, Open Geospatial Consortium

RFC Process General Overview – SWG based
Approval Fails Intent to submit notice Received by TCC Announced to TC And charter for SWG created Create SWG for working candidate Standard TC Votes to Approve SWG Charter – or not Work happens OAB and OGC-NA Review SWG Votes to release For Public Comment TC vote to approve as standard 30 Day Public Comment SWG Collates Comments And edits Candidate Standard SWG Votes to Recommend to TC/PC For Adoption Key points for SWG: Must create charter. This is done by submission team. SWG Charter specifies IPR policy in effect New SWG always announced to TC and the public. TC formally approves charter Members can opt-in to work in that SWG – or not A SWG can work application profiles/schemas PC Vote Publication Minimum time from start to finish = 9 months Copyright © 2015, Open Geospatial Consortium

new website coming this September

What’s going to be different?
 mobile friendly  less text, better quality content more up to date new content recent presentations from DWGs & staff simple overviews (incl sample code) member information & articles alliance partner work pictures! easier to find what you need Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium

How can you help? pictures please update your SWG & DWG information in the portal what’s the latest innovation/development in your group? have you got great sample code you want to share? could you be a tester? do you have a great idea? Image courtesy of jscreationzs at FreeDigitalPhotos.net Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium

Opening Plenary 95th OGC Technical Committee Boulder, Colorado USA

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Opening Plenary 95th OGC Technical Committee Boulder, Colorado USA"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Opening Plenary 95th OGC Technical Committee Boulder, Colorado USA

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Opening Plenary 95th OGC Technical Committee Boulder, Colorado USA"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback