OGC Charter

[briannapagan]

First completed draft of the OGC Charter. Would especially like feedback on the Out of Scope section.

[briannapagan]

Also - if we can have reviewers submit suggestions by Wednesday May 31st, that way we can send to Scott before next OGC meeting in person scheduled for June 5th.

[ashiklom]

GeoDataCube SWG, for reference.

22-052_GeoDataCube_Standards_Working_Group_Charter.pdf

[ashiklom]

A few more for reference that may be useful:

OGC GeoParquet Standards Working Group Charter.pdf

23-006_OGC_GeoDCAT_SWG_Charter.pdf

23-009r2_OGC_Agriculture_Information_Model_SWG_Charter.pdf

[rabernat]

Thanks for getting this started. Here are some suggestions.

[rabernat]

Thanks for getting this started. Here are some suggestions.

[ethanrd]

This seems counter to the sentence (and discussion) above in the Purpose section:

The GeoZarr SWG will also work on improving the Climate and Forecast (CF) conventions if necessary, particularly for alternative coordinate reference system (CRS) encoding if relevant.

I agree GeoZarr shouldn't wait forever for changes to CF. However, working with the CF community for some reasonable amount of time certainly seems within scope for GeoZarr.

Perhaps this should be removed and some mention of not being totally blocked by CF disagreements should be added in the Purpose section or the Relationshop with Other OGC Standards section?

Not sure what should be out of scope. Perhaps something generic and simple like:

The GeoZarr SWG will only consider matters related to encoding geospatial data in Zarr.

[christophenoel]

I wish to articulate two personal viewpoints on the charter:

• Speaking from my own inclination, GeoZarr must be COG with multiple dimensions (goal of the inital work - that nonetheless retains the potential for progressive evolution- ).
• Charter should favor inclusivity: instead of precipitously discarding elements, we should concentrate on pinpointing potential topics of interest (as individuals are more likely to focus work on areas that align with their specific needs).

[rabernat]

I think the central tension here is how many specific features should be explicitly enumerated in the charter vs. emerging from the SWG. Clearly there is disagreement about the scope of the spec (e.g. visualization or no). But to move forward, we need to agree on the scope of the charter, which is not the same thing.

[dblodgett-usgs]

This is a great start.

Major red flag for me is that some of the language is not precise enough to really be understandable. A number of others have commented to this affect.

The "out of scope" section needs to be much stronger.

The timeline seems very aggressive. Unless the plan is to deliver a draft standard with no real evidence of implementation I don't see getting this done on the intended timeline unless you have a very strong team lined up to work on implementing the outcomes. See here for more. http://docs.opengeospatial.org/pol/05-020r29/05-020r29.html#the-two-track-Standards-process-characteristics

[dblodgett-usgs]

The out of scope section should be much stronger to provide guidance for and focus the SWG activities.

Will dimensions of l model data (like ensemble) be in scope? I think the answer is no?

Will data access patterns for GeoZARR be part of the SWG activities or will this be strictly limited to a ZARR data package? i.e. will the conformance target be a zarr dataset standard or will there be other conformance targets like web data access? I see some stuff above that says that yes, access patterns are in scope, but would shy away from that being part of the normative spec and leave it as informative / guidance on how a person might use GeoZARR.

Perhaps some things called out from the discussion around visualization and symbology? Other things that should be out?

[christophenoel]

I disagree the charter should determine that. I also disagree about descoping those topics (which are covered in the original draft).

[dblodgett-usgs]

Some narrative about the relationship to the CF and ZARR communities could go here?

[briannapagan]

Thank you everyone for the extensive conversations and suggestions. I have 2-3 left to consider. I am suggesting canceling the July 5th bi-weekly call in exchange for everyone taking the time to read through the charter once more and give any last edits before I merge and send to Scott at the OGC. From our last meeting, I think with the switching of some terminology we can proceed with having some of these discussions as part of the SWG itself.

Please give a thumbs up or down by Friday July 7th. @ashiklom @christophenoel @rabernat @tylere @dblodgett-usgs @matthewhanson @ethanrd @sharkinsspatial

[christophenoel]

I fully endorse the charter we've compiled, finding its content astoundingly well-conceived. Kudos to all of use for our unwavering commitment and the remarkable accomplishment achieved :) :)

[tylere]

I left a few additional comments, but all are minor. Thumbs up on the charter content.

[briannapagan]

@rabernat @sharkinsspatial @ethanrd @matthewhanson would you also like to sign the charter as a supporter, if so let me know I will add your names/affiliations.

[rabernat]

Yes for sure!