I draw your attention to the US contributions HSSC5-04.2B (creation of an S-100 WG) and HSSC5-04.2C (Optimising HSSC Working Groups), which amongst other proposals, suggests disbanding the HDWG and subsume its future activities within a new CCCWG (Chart Content & Cartography Working Group).
My first (immoderate) reaction is as follows:
1. Although less directly concerned than other WGs, HDWG can only support any sensible reshuffling of unmanageable HSSC .
2. However, the idea of reducing Hydrography to Marine Cartography is not in the interest of the IHO, which has to address many other issues (Hydrographic surveys, geosciences, training, capacity building, ABLOS, etc.).
3. Should in the interest of simplification, the HDWG have to be disbanded (although, it is probably the least costly of all WGs, has’nt been given a chance to meet or think as a body for the past 10 years or so under the eternal pretext of economies, is taken for granted and is further supposed to referee on the spot never ending bickering between tenants of tradition against digital bureaucrats, it should operate within a structure that truly reflects the diversity of hydrography, and not one of its aspects.
Your opinion is more than welcome, bearing in mind that one of the good point of this forum is that it gives us a chance to air our feelings without ruffling too many feathers. In view of your comments, I shall prepare a more PC reply in due time.
I agree with your comments below and those in your e-mail.
The HD is the source and basis for the Hydrographic Registry, a key digital element of the S-10x Product Specifications.
Subsuming HDWG into CSPCWG would indicate analogue cartography is still pre-eminent, ergo digital development needs to reflect/follow analogue progress, in fact the reverse should increasingly be the case. In addition there is danger future definition reviews could carry too much of an analogue slant.
HD addresses a much wider spectrum of issues than simply cartographic (digital and analogue), being required to review tidal, surface current, LoS and navigational terms as well as numerous scientific and other associated relevant terms.
It is doubtful whether CSPCWG could devote the time or effort to properly address these issues without creating a separate sub-group, i.e. HDWG under another name.
What is important for the HD and the HDWG is that all declared members engage with the revision of terms throughout the process, rather than commenting on the translations at the end. The HD needs input from all members to develop robust definitions, which reflect the experience and understanding from as wide a scope of experienced hydrographic surveyors and cartographers as possible; it is of little benefit if the work is left to 2 or 3 concerned individuals, who will inevitably have limits to their knowledge and experience.
I agree with all that Jean and David have said. The fact that terms and definitions in the Dictionary have to be applicable (and suitable) for all disciplines in hydrography was one of the key criteria upon which the previous Chair and Secretary based all discussions.
The CSPCWG area of expertise is primarily in the area of nautical cartography (not "primarily analogue", but an equal focus across all media for nautical charting products). In order for the work of the HDWG to adequately cover all disciplines related to hydrography, I think it is important that the group maintain its autonomy.