This document defines the OGC Engineering Report life cycle to be applied to OGC Interoperability Program Initiatives, in particular Testbeds. Further integration into the OGC Standardization Program may require further discussion. The goal is to harmonize the engineering report development procedure and to ensure a concise implementation schedule.

ER Development Process Underlying Rationale

The following arguments have been taken into account to develop the ER development process as described herein:

  1. The uptake of research and development results documented in ERs carries broader importance to advancing the OGC Standards Baseline.

  2. ERs contain important material for the OGC standards development process. It is important that all information is carefully reviewed by affected WGs. At the same time, the additional burden to WGs should be kept to a minimum.

  3. Innovation Program Activities such as testbeds are the OGC technology and engineering laboratories. Acquired experiences made during testbeds may be of further value to the wider OGC community, even though ideas and approaches might have been discarded during the activity.

ER States

Each ER undergoes a series of distinct states. Each state allows multiple iterations:

  1. Initial draft ER (IER): Any ER starts with an inquiry by the editor to WGs to obtain commitment for review. An ER receives the IER status once a WG has agreed to review the future document. The final iteration of the IER is forwarded to WG review. In most cases, this IER describes the requirements of the work to be addressed, the business value of the expected results, and the current status quo of the investigated standard or technology with particular emphasis on recent WG discussions.

  2. Draft ER (DER): A WG performs a review on the IER. Once the editor has integrated all feedback from the WG, the ER receives DER status. The editor develops this DER in multiple iterations. The final version will be reviewed by the initiative architect(s), who provide(s) feedback to the editor. The editor reviews the comments and uploads the final version to the OGC portal’s Pending Documents section for WG review eventually. The WG will provide feedback to the editor, who needs to review all comments and uploads the new version of the DER to Pending Documents again. This version is then available to all OGC members and handed over to the OGC Standards Program to initiate voting on public release and further consideration in the standardization process.

  3. Public ER (PER): Positively voted on ER that will be made available to the public.

ER Format

ER shall be published as HTML-encoded Web pages and PDF for archiving. To facilitate the multiple format release process, all Testbed-13 ER shall be delivered in Asciidoc. An Asciidoc template has been made available on the OGC portal. The template shall be used during the entire ER development process, i.e. IER, DER and PER do not differ in format.

There are may tools available to support the Asciidoc development process. The simplest include a text editor and a compiler, please see asciidoctor.org for details. There are platform independent tools available also. OGC has made best experiences with the combination of the free Atom editor with asciidoctor and asciidoctor-pdf.

ER Development Procedure

The ER development procedure defines a number of steps:

  1. Each ER editor needs to identify the primary WG for final draft ER review.

  2. Each ER editor needs to discuss the ER with the identified WG and receive confirmation upon doing this single review towards the end of the initiative.

  3. The editor requests a document number from the OGC portal, edits files er.adoc and develops all sections in file 1-summary.adoc. This file contains a documentation of the current state of the art of the subject under investigation, including the latest discussions in OGC WGs on that topic.

  4. The editor provides the content of the 1-summary.adoc file to the WG for review. The easiest way to do this is by putting the content into an email to the group. Goal here is to make sure that the DWG/SWG has a chance to double check if the editor has captured important previous discussions.

  5. The editor may receive feedback from the WG and reviews all comments. The ER has now IER status.

  6. The editor delivers the IER to the initiative architects at the IER Submission milestone

  7. The document now enters the DER development phase, and the editor will lead development over the following months

  8. The editor submits a preliminary version of the DER to the internal testbed stakeholders at the DER Submission milestone

  9. Internal testbed stakeholders review the document and provide feedback to the editor

  10. The editor reviews all feedback and uploads the document to OGC Portal Pending Documents section for WG review at the SWG Submission milestone

  11. The editor informs the WG that the document is available for review

  12. The WG reviews the document and provides feedback to the editor. At this step, the WG does not vote on the document, rather members of the WG provide comments to the editor(s)

  13. The editor reviews all comments and develops the final DER version

  14. The editor uploads the DER to OGC Portal Pending Documents section again at the OGC Submission milestone

  15. The editor informs the WG about the final document and requests a presentation slot at the next WG meeting (might be by phone conference or during a physical meeting)

  16. The editor presents the document and forms a motion to recommend to the TC that the DER shall be released to the public. If the DER is presented at a regular WG meeting, a simple majority vote suffices. Otherwise, an electronic vote process will be initiated.

  17. The DER is now formally part of the OGC Standards Program, which will take care of the next steps.

ER Milestones

For the Testbed-13, the following milestones apply: