QoSE DWG meeting		
10th April 2018 at 14 UTC
Online

Present:
	•	Ilkka Rinne (IR, Spatineo, chair)
	•	Cindy Mitchell (CM, Natural Resources Canada)
	•	Amanda Chiprout (AC, Natural Resources Canada)

Meeting minutes

1. Opening

The meeting was opened by IR (chair) at 14:07 UTC

2. Approval of the minutes of the last online meeting

Minutes of the QoSE DWG meeting held on 13th February were approved as drafted by IR and published in the wiki.

3. Recap of the DWG meeting in Orléans, France in March

IR presented the report slides he had made for the Orléans closing plenary. CM noted that the “OGC 17-049 Ensuring Quality of User Experience with OGC Web Mapping Services - Discussion Paper” had been published and was available at the OGC website.

IR noted that the group should draft a preliminary list of who’s planning on attending the remaining TC meetings in 2018, this would be an item for the next online meeting.

4. QoSE DWG work programme items for 2018
 
IR presented the initial priority work topics of the group he had drafted based on the Orléans meeting feedback (QoSE DWG Rolling Work Programme page in the wiki). The tasks were listed under two groups: the QoS metrics and metadata, and QoE Discussion Paper / Best Practice.

IR proposed to create a wiki page for collecting information about where the QoE Discussion Paper had been presented and to think about the potential upcoming group meetings and other events to which the contents of the discussion paper would be relevant. The linked presentations could make it easier to present the core ideas and findings of the paper in future meetings. CM agreed that this would be a good idea, and added that the first ones to come in mind would be the W3C Spatial Data on the Web and the UN-GGIM. NR Canada is active in both groups.

IR mentioned that he hoped to get more attendees for the next online meeting in May in order to be able to have a proper discussion on the work programme for 2018 and who would be interested and able to commit to which task. CM agreed, and added that it would be good if people had time to review the work programme and pre-select the interesting tasks before the next meeting.

CM asked if IR had been in contact with Tom Kralidis lately. She noted that his contribution would probably be very relevant to the QoS measurement discussions.

IR proposed that for each of the bullets in the tasks list would be expanded as their own wiki page with more detailed description of the task, expected results, timeline etc. Considering the QoS metrics and metadata he did expect to eventually produce one or two best practice documents: one for the metrics and another for the QoS metadata considering the QoS expectation. He also mentioned that he expected the actual code list values for the QoS metrics to be published in the OGC Definitions Service, which was in beta stage.

CM asked if the DWG should be involved with the OGC Definitions Server activity. IR answered that this service/server development is being steered by the OGC Naming Authority group. He added that it would indeed make sense to submit the QoSE DWG expectations to the OGC-NA considering the use cases for publishing and maintaining the QoS code lists.

IR noted that in the work topics for 2017 there was a task about the QoSE API and reporting language, that was never really moved forward. This topic was brought forward by Tom Kralidis, and the idea was to have machine readable, commonly agreed format for reporting QoS testing results. IR had done a bit of digging around this topic, and found out that W3C had had an activity in the past called Evaluation and Report Language (EARL), which may be useful for this kind of reporting. However, EARL 1.0 is only published as a W3C Working Group Note in 2017, because the hosting working group (ERT WG) reached the end of its Charter, and there were not sufficient implementations to complete EARL 1.0 as a W3C Recommendation. This the usefulness of EARL would need further investigation, and IR had not yet added that to the 2018 work topics.

CM noted that the proposed list of 2018 tasks already looked ambitious regarding the small size of the active group members. IR agreed, that it might be necessary to review and prioritise the list when there is a better understanding of the people willing to commit their time to these items.  

CM asked whether the mandate of the QoSE DWG would expire at the end of 2018. IR answered that the group was permanent with no specific expiration time.
 
5. Any other business

No the business.

6. Closing

The meeting was closed by IR at 14:55 UTC