RFC Summary The RFC was announced and opened in an OGC Press Release on 12 April 2016: The RFC comment period was 45 days, and it closed on May 27, 2016. The SWG voted to request a 45-day RFC period due to the number and complexity of draft documents comprising the candidate standard. 13 submissions were received from 10 submitters (some submitters made more than one submission); many submissions contained more than one B’ comment. ‘Part A public Google spreadsheet has been used throughout this RFC period to record the received comments and ‘Sheets’ actions and comment resolution by the document editors and the CDB SWG: A tracking number was generated by the SWG; are two parts to the tracking number. The first part is a simple number sequence assigned in the order the comment was received at the OGC email/archive. The second ‘requests’ part of the tracking number represents a 01-to-n sequential number of one or more B’ comment components in ‘Part the RFC submission as received. General Comments CDB SWG Approved Charter The formation of the CDB Standards Working was approved by a full electronic vote of the OGC Technical Committee with the following SWG Charter: The following is excerpted from the approved SWG charter under section 4. Scope of Work: The SWG will actively investigate the use of existing OGC standards such as GML, CityGML, IndoorGML and others as potential source data components of any proposed OGC CDB standard(s), so long as incorporating those components is not out of scope (see 4.2 below). The following is excerpted from the approved SWG charter under section 4.2 What is Out of Scope? This SWG will not work on any change requests to the existing Common DataBase specification beyond those submitted during the 30 day public comment period. The Charter Members of the SWG, and the OGC TC voting members accepted the constraint that Version 1.0 of the CDB SWG represent the translation of the legacy CDB 3.2 specification into the modular specification and document templates of the OGC, along with alignment of terminology whenever possible, and any major/substantive changes to the standard would be reserved for future work. The resultant candidate standard separates the Core Standard from other
RFC Summary The RFC was announced and opened in an OGC Press Release on 12 April 2016: The RFC comment period was 45 days, and it closed on May 27, 2016. The SWG voted to request a 45-day RFC period due to the number and complexity of draft documents comprising the candidate standard. 13 submissions were received from 10 submitters (some submitters made more than one submission); many submissions contained more than one ‘Part B’ comment. A public Google ‘Sheets’ spreadsheet has been used throughout this RFC period to record the received comments and actions and comment resolution by the document editors and the CDB SWG: A tracking number was generated by the SWG; are two parts to the tracking number. The first part is a simple number sequence assigned in the order the comment was received at the OGC ‘requests’ email/archive. The second part of the tracking number represents a 01-to-n sequential number of one or more ‘Part B’ comment components in the RFC submission as received. General Comments CDB SWG Approved Charter The formation of the CDB Standards Working was approved by a full electronic vote of the OGC Technical Committee with the following SWG Charter: The following is excerpted from the approved SWG charter under section 4. Scope of Work: The SWG will actively investigate the use of existing OGC standards such as GML, CityGML, IndoorGML and others as potential source data components of any proposed OGC CDB standard(s), so long as incorporating those components is not out of scope (see 4.2 below). The following is excerpted from the approved SWG charter under section 4.2 What is Out of Scope? This SWG will not work on any change requests to the existing Common DataBase specification beyond those submitted during the 30 day public comment period. The Charter Members of the SWG, and the OGC TC voting members accepted the constraint that Version 1.0 of the CDB SWG represent the translation of the legacy CDB 3.2 specification into the modular specification and document templates of the OGC, along with alignment of terminology whenever possible, and any major/substantive changes to the standard would be reserved for future work. The resultant candidate standard separates the Core Standard from other