QoSE DWG meeting		
13th June 2017 at 14 UTC
Online

Present:
	•	Ilkka Rinne (IR, Spatineo, chair)
	•	Cindy Mitchell (CM, NRCanada)
	•	Tom Kralidis (TK, Environment and Climate Change Canada)
	•	Michelle Anthony (MA, USGS)

Meeting minutes

1. Opening

The meeting was opened by IR (chair) at 14:05 UTC

2. Approval of the minutes of the last meeting

The last meeting was held on the 9th May. The meetings minutes had been posted in the Portal meeting folder, linked to the QoSE DWG wiki, and a note sent to mailing list two weeks before this meeting.

The minutes were approved without comments.

3. Work topic progress & status

a. Survey for the most useful QoS metrics

Michael Gordon was not able to join the meeting, but he had briefed IR about the status of the survey by email. He had made a Google Forms version of the survey, and would like people to give it a try and send feedback on the questions and answer options directly him. IR promised to send the link to the online survey to the group mailing list.

b. Common QoSE terms and concepts

TK also had briefed IR on status of the list of QoSE terms & concepts. TK had published the initial list in the Github wiki at https://github.com/opengeospatial/QoSE-DWG/wiki/CommonQoSETermsAndConcepts/b6fa39c7b3b76c6409f6a365ac807da145a65888 and asked the group for feedback on these terms. TK had set the deadline for the DWG-approved list to 20th June.

IR initiated discussion on the way to approve the list of terms. He asked if the participants felt that it was realistic to get the DWG approval by 20th June, which was just a week after this meeting. CM said that the list looked ok, but she would need to take another look on it, and send her feedback to Tom. She said she would like to use the approved terms in the QoE Discussion Paper.

IR proposed not to make the approval process too formal: ask if anyone has any objections to the current terms, and if not, the these terms are approved for use in any of the group’s documents. The list itself would not have to be fixed, but rather a living document with a possibility to add and improve terms as the group see appropriate. CM and MA agreed that this approach seemed good. 

c. OGC Best Practice for providing QoS metadata for OGC Web Services

IR told that drafting the document as an OGC Best Practice would probably be a somewhat lengthy process due to his limited time and the required evidence of implementation. Still he felt that it would make sense to start drafting the document directly as a technical specification in a Best Practice format.

IR had made a limited progress on the topic, but he had created a wiki page the the work at http://external.opengeospatial.org/twiki_public/QualityOfService/QoSMetadataBestPractice 

One of the open questions was if and how to split the document: Would it make sense to publish the core requirements in one document and each service specific binding a separate document, or should we try to provide everything as a single document. A single document option could prove difficult when new service specific bindings need to be added, as the new version of the whole document would have to approved again by the TC. On the other hand splitting the document in took many pieces could make reading and managing more difficult.

IR pointed out that he would also like to separate descriptions of the QoS metrics from the encoding of the QoS metadata including the declared values for those metrics. Whether the definitions of these metrics and the sets of the recommended metrics for particular application domains should be published as an OGC document, a code list registry, or something else, was still an open question.

Considering the drafting process, IR proposed to first create a complete “0.5” version of the document to be properly wetted in experimental implementation projects, such as the OGC Testbed 14. Collect feedback from these initial implementations, make the necessary improvements to the document, and only after this submit the BP to the TC for approval. He did not expect to get the 1.0 version ready before the end of  2017.

d. OGC Discussion paper for ensuring QoE of OGC Web Services

CM told that she had a draft version of the document in Google Docs. CM had shared the document with MA and Michael Gordon, TK and IR. CM and TK had agreed that it would be easiest to work with the document in Google Docs first, and post a version to Github when the initial group feels it’s ready for comments by a wider audience.

CM was planning to go though the provided comments and suggestions the following week and have a 1.0 version ready for posting to the Github repository. She was also planning to prepare a short presentation for the St. John’s meeting focusing on the actual recommendations that would possibly become included in the Best Practice document.

5. QoSE DWG meeting at St. John's TC

The DWG meeting was scheduled for Tue 27th June at 10:15 am - 12:00 pm (local time), that is 08:45 am - 10:30 am EDT or 12:45 - 14:30 UTC, room Garrison/Signal Room. IR went through the preliminary agenda for the meeting.

The meeting will be chaired by Tom Kralidis, IR will join online.

CM asked IR whether he was planning to go to the TC meeting in Southampton in September 2017. IR said that he would probably not be able make it, because he will be on a parental leave at that time. CM said that she is considering going to the Denver TC meeting in person in March 2018.

6. Any other business

No other business

7. Closing

The meeting was closed by IR at 14:42 UTC