OWS Quality of Service ad hoc			
20th September 2016 at 8.15 am EDT
OGC TC/PC in Orlando

Present:
	•	Ilkka Rinne (IR, Spatineo, chair, remotely)
	•	Michelle Anthony (MA, SGT, contracting for USGS)
	•	Luis Bermudez (LB, OGC)
	•	Michael Gordon (MJG, Ordnance Survey, meeting secretary)
	•	Tom Kralidis (TK, Environment and Climate Change Canada/Meteorological Service of Canada, remotely)
	•	Joseph Abhayaratna, (JS, PSMA Australia, remotely)
	•	Jason Smith (JaS, Harris corp)
	•	Dimitri Saranof (DS, IGN France)
	•	Jean-Baptiste Henry (JBH, Thales S.A., remotely)
	•	Cheryl Nayyar (CN, NGA, remotely)
	•	Rob Dollison (RD, USGS, remotely)
	•	John Cirincione (Collateral Analytics, remotely)

Meeting minutes

1. Opening

The meeting was opened by IR (chair) at 8:15 EDT

2. Approval of minutes of the last meeting

The draft minutes were taken down by IR and were made available in the group's wiki space and in the Meetings folder of the project in the OGC Portal (see https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=70524).

The draft minutes were accepted with no discussion.

3. Quick introduction: Quality of Service and Experience in the OGC context: the problems identified and progress this far

IR presented the group’s work accomplished since the Dublin TC meeting and the status of the actions.

4. Candidates for chair and co-chair(s) of the proposed Quality of Service and Experience Domain Working Group (QoSE DWG)

IR presented the voluntaries for the group chairs: Ilkka Rinne (Spatineo Inc.) and Tom Kralidis (Environment and Climate Change Canada/Meteorological Service of Canada) have volunteered as the co-chairs of the QoSE DWG. No other proposals for group chairs had been made.

The group agreed that Ilkka and Tom were good candidates for the co-chairs.

5. Presentation: FGDC Status Checker by Michelle Anthony

MA presented the FGDC Status Checker application. Discussion and notes:

	•	Web services discovery availability and quality are critical for adoption - supports many of the QoSE problem statements
	•	Monitor, score, provide diagnostics and expose to the public - creates confidence in the services
	•	Supports wide array of services - both OGC and ESRI
	•	54,802 services tested daily as of July 10.
	•	Recently upgraded to MVC architecture from old PHP implementation
	•	Service Reliability available as an exposable catalogue - so can present scoring of availability back to users - therefore can be presented as dashboard or within web GIS layer.

LB: How often are services checked?
MA: Currently once a day after big increase in no. of services

**
MA:
	•	Summary Report created to service feed owner and email to service owner when service is down
	•	Dashboard  also created on whether services up/down, and whether they were invalid
	•	Drill into individual services down to report for individual service

LB: Getcaps is checked for being available but not whether is valid?
MA: Correct

DS: What layers get checked?
MA: If Getmap then its the layer provided, if GetCaps then its the first one

MA: API exposes content - RESTful,using API key, returns XML or JSON

LB: Is this to get data or do live test?
MA: Example is getting data but endpoint

LB: Have you looked at OGC validation tools and how to integrate?
MA: Discussed it but not implemented
MJG: Might take long time but could be done at entry or batch 
DS: Conformance not the same as quality of service/experience but might be helpful at that first entry

IR: Do you got through each on the atom feeds once a day and go through test?
MA: We sync to feed, test, email notify, database cleanup

6. Presentation and discussion about the draft of the DWG Charter document

About 50% / 75% of participants still looking at charter changes posted by Ilkka
 
IR: Summarised the charter structure

---

JaS: Good definition for QoE - only focuses on qualitatively but there could also be quantitative measures of customer experience?
LB: Why wouldn't that apply to QoS as well?
MJG: More technical measures that can be qualitatively measured - if qualitative then it would become QoE
IR: Echoed this point

----

IR: Is SDS a good generic term to use?
MJG: Does the definition agree with INSPIRE given term comes from there?
LB: Also ISO definition of service as being composed of interfaces containing operations
MJG: INSPIRE definition is even more generic so seems like a good choice so that we can cover QoS and QoE across different types of service (protocols etc.)

----

IR: Enlarged scope with explicit mention of IoT, any comments or concerns?
No comments back

----

IR: Any comments on DWG Working group?
No Comments

---

IR: Purposes of working group - reminder that we would need to take any ideas on standardisation to TC and SWGs
JaS: Fitness for purpose - do we want to add a comment on geospatial feedback group? and that that feedback mechanism isn't within our scope.
IR: It is discussed later in charter
JaS: Ok, that's fine

---
IR: Moving to Information community - added point about IoT and SensorThings API
MJG: Wonder if getting to SensorThings API is getting too specific?
LB: Maybe second bullet could incorporate that - software, hardware for spatial data service including IoT 
IR: Agree on merging bullets
JaS: Do we need a bullet to specifically address research communities on QoS and QoE? Currently tied into IoT bullet
LB: Yes another bullet to cover research community as this section covers information community

---

IR: Problem statements - are yours included here?
MJG: Do we specifically want OGC Web Services?
IR: That was in existing problem statement and targeted at that
MJG: Fine, just wanted to make sure it wasn't an oversight when changing terms

IR: Added INSPIRE link around difficulty in current INSPIRE proposals on QoS
No Comments

IR: QoE - any comments?
JaS: Do we want to add something around human aspects - how to present data etc - or would this be a rabbit hole?
IR: Good question - how much app experience do we want to include in scope?
JaS: To some level, services can't be beat up for use of service within a certain app presentation
IR: Optimal ways of services could be used could be in scope
LB: Maybe add a bullet to add user experience
JaS: Or human aspects?
LB: Or human interaction with the service?
MJG: Adds that nicely at edge of use of service
IR: There is also a set of key activities - should be described as problem statement
MJG: agreed, but last current bullet isn't a problem statement but a solution
IR: Will rephrase and add another bullet for human interaction

---

IR: Charter - addition of automated to systematic and automated - thinks systematic covers it
TK: Yep thats ok
IR: Charter members - any additional? - only requirement to do some work. FGDC, Harris, PSMA Aus all added.

---

Covered rest of charter - no comments.

---

7. Roadmap for finalising the charter proposal of the formation of the QoSE DWG

R: Roadmap
MJG: date to finish doc? 
IR: Have telecon in 2 weeks and decide on final date before submission
JS: Who will be at Taichung TC?
- Few, with a couple waiting for funding
JS: We'll fly the flag

8. Next meeting

IR will set a Doodle for the next online meeting on week 41.

9. Closing

The meeting was closed by IR at 10:00 EDT