Re: comments on comparison of CoverageJSON and TimseriesML

Thanks Jon!

> On 6 Jul 2017, at 17:06, Jon Blower <j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> OK, I fixed the https issue and I also changed the edDraftURI in config.js to use https. Now there are no respec warnings!
>  
> (However, viewers may have to force-reload to see the changes to avoid browser caching issues [1].)
>  
> Hopefully this is now finished!
>  
> Best wishes,
> Jon
>  
> [1] https://xkcd.com/1854/
>  
>  
> From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
> Organization: W3C
> Date: Thursday, 6 July 2017 16:44
> To: Jon Blower <sgs02jdb@reading.ac.uk>, Chris Little <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>, Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>
> Cc: "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> Subject: RE: comments on comparison of CoverageJSON and TimseriesML
>  
> Thanks, Jon.
>  
> Changing the URL of the script as suggested would indeed solve the mixed content security issues!
>  
> I will prepare things so that the document gets published as a final Working Group Note on Tuesday next week (publications only happen on Tuesdays and Thursdays).
>  
> Francois.
>  
>  
> From: Jon Blower [mailto:j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 5:28 PM
> To: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>; 'Little, Chris' <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>; 'Bill Roberts' <bill@swirrl.com>
> Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: comments on comparison of CoverageJSON and TimseriesML
>  
> Hi Francois,
>  
> OK, I’ve done this. Since it was such a small change I hope you don’t mind that I committed directly to the gh-pages branch (I didn’t create a PR).
>  
> Lars helpfully pointed out that ReSpec isn’t being picked up so the formatting is all wrong. He sent the following suggestion:
>  
> “I _think_ that is because the html file is served over https but in the file respec is referenced with an http URI (not an https URI) which causes both Firefox and Chrome to raise security concerns (insecure content) and simply refuse to load the script. Changing line six in https://w3c.github.io/sdw/coverage-json/ to
>  
> [[
> <script  class="remove"  src="https://www.w3.org/Tools/respec/respec-w3c-common"></script>
> ]]
> “
>  
> I didn’t change this myself because I didn’t want to mess with the “plumbing” but am happy to try changing this if it will do the trick.
>  
> Best wishes,
> Jon
>  
> From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
> Organization: W3C
> Date: Thursday, 6 July 2017 10:11
> To: Jon Blower <sgs02jdb@reading.ac.uk>, Chris Little <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>, Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>
> Cc: "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> Subject: RE: comments on comparison of CoverageJSON and TimseriesML
>  
> Hi Jon,
>  
> Please do and let me know once that is done. Since there was general support and no objection to publishing the CoverageJSON document, I will proceed with the publication request of the final WG Note afterwards.
>  
> Thanks,
> Francois.
>  
> From: Jon Blower [mailto:j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 11:05 AM
> To: Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>; Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>
> Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: comments on comparison of CoverageJSON and TimseriesML
>  
> Thanks Chris!
>  
> Bill, if it’s not too late I can make the change that Chris suggests, and I’ve also noticed another small correction (“at” should be “with” in the last sentence). Shall I go ahead?
>  
> Cheers,
> Jon
>  
>  
> From: Chris Little <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
> Date: Thursday, 6 July 2017 10:02
> To: Jon Blower <sgs02jdb@reading.ac.uk>, Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>
> Cc: "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> Subject: RE: comments on comparison of CoverageJSON and TimseriesML
>  
> Jon, Bill,
>  
> A little bit late, as I was off line while I was in Canada and only now back at work. Jon’s text is fine and accurate.
>  
> Perhaps to convey the richness of the 13 ‘interpolation types’ of TimeseriesML, “or average of a quantity” could read “, average or several other functions of a quantity”.
>  
> And +1 to publish.
>  
> Chris
>  
> From: Jon Blower [mailto:j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk] 
> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 4:27 PM
> To: Bill Roberts; Little, Chris
> Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: comments on comparison of CoverageJSON and TimseriesML
>  
> Hi Bill,
>  
> Yes, I have now created a PR for this. It would be useful if Chris could double-check it. Here is the new text for his convenience:
>  
> “CoverageJSON can be used to record data that take the form of timeseries, for example measurements of flow rate in in a river, or average London rainfall over time. [TimeseriesML] specializes in recording such data and provides some features that are not provided in CoverageJSON. For example, in TimeseriesML, richer metadata can be added to better describe the data values being measured (the range) and their relationship to time (the domain). For example, a data value in the range may be defined to represent an accumulation, maximum, minimum or average of a quantity over time, and the time values in the domain may be defined to mark the start, end or middle of the time period in question. In CoverageJSON, this level of description is not yet possible.
>  
> Version 1.0 of TimeseriesML (the current version at the time of writing) does not permit the association of multiple parameters at each data point, whereas this is permitted in CoverageJSON.”
>  
> Cheers,
> Jon
>  
>  
> From: Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>
> Date: Wednesday, 21 June 2017 18:21
> To: Chris Little <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
> Cc: Jon Blower <sgs02jdb@reading.ac.uk>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: comments on comparison of CoverageJSON and TimseriesML
>  
> Chris - many thanks for that.  Jon - are you happy to make the corresponding small tweaks to the document?
>  
> Cheers
>  
> Bill
>  
> On 21 June 2017 at 16:04, Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk> wrote:
> Jon,
>  
> “Not yet” is the best answer – the SWG has been re-chartered and started work again to do precisely this, but I’ve not seen much progress, but then I was not at Delft.
>  
> Chris
>  
> From: Jon Blower [mailto:j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 3:55 PM
> To: Little, Chris; Bill Roberts; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: comments on comparison of CoverageJSON and TimseriesML
>  
> Hi Chris,
>  
> That’s very helpful, thanks. So do I understand correctly from your final comment that TimeseriesMLv1 does *not* permit the recording of multiple parameters at each data point? This may be worth mentioning as a point of comparison.
>  
> (What is the current version of TimeseriesML by the way?)
>  
> Cheers,
> Jon
>  
>  
>  
> Jon Blower | CTO, Institute for Environmental Analytics
>  
> Follow the IEA on Twitter @env_analytics  and on LinkedIn The Institute for Environmental Analytics (IEA)
>  
> Philip Lyle Building, University of Reading, Whiteknights Campus, Reading RG6 6BX
> T: +44 (0)118 378 5213 M: +44 (0)7919 112687 
> E: j.blower@the-iea.org W: www.the-iea.org
>  
> From: Chris Little <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
> Date: Wednesday, 21 June 2017 15:50
> To: Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>, Jon Blower <sgs02jdb@reading.ac.uk>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> Subject: RE: comments on comparison of CoverageJSON and TimseriesML
>  
> Bill,
>  
> Sorry to take so long to get around to this.
>  
> The paragraph is fine, but I suggest making “accumulation or average” read “accumulation, maximum, minimum or average” to give a wider indication of the 13 possible ‘interpolation types’.
>  
> I think it a hostage to fortune to mention work in progress for TimeseriesML V2 (multiple parameters at each data point/time)
>  
> Chris
>  
> From: Bill Roberts [mailto:bill@swirrl.com] 
> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 8:32 AM
> To: Little, Chris; Jon Blower; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> Subject: comments on comparison of CoverageJSON and TimseriesML
>  
> Hi Chris
>  
> In the SDW call on Wednesday night, the folks Scott and Armin suggested to me that you might be the ideal person to assist Jon and I with one final small task on the CoverageJSON document.
>  
> Section 6.3 of the document http://w3c.github.io/sdw/coverage-json/#ogc-timeseriesml makes some comparisons between TimeseriesML and CoverageJSON but neither Jon nor I feel very confident in our knowledge of TimeseriesML.  Would you mind looking at that short section and checking it for accuracy?  Also, if you have any suggestions for additional points of comparison that we should include, please do go ahead and suggest!
>  
> I hope that wouldn't take you too long and would allow us to wrap up the final open issue on the doc.  Is that something you'd have time to do over the next few days?
>  
> Many thanks
>  
> Bill
>