Re: QB4ST comments

I totally agree re the example.. i was reluctant to make too artificial an
example.. and was hoping to get some feedback, direction and support from
the DGGS forum and that eo4qb would be able to go there...

What would be ideal is if you were able to point me at online examples of a
dataset, especially one that has  nested grid resolution, exposed by
services, ideally with rdf metadata already in place we can make assertions
about, rather than the mess of establishing meaningful identifiers.
Otherwise i'll probably need to leave it as a note to encourage a future
iteration.

Rob

On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, 7:33 AM Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
wrote:

Bill,



FWIW, the Oxford English Dictionary has a presumption in favour of ‘Z’. And
just don’t mention commas.



Chris



*From:* Bill Roberts [mailto:bill@swirrl.com]
*Sent:* Monday, March 13, 2017 7:31 PM
*To:* Rob Atkinson; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
*Subject:* QB4ST comments



Hi Rob



I had a read through QB4ST and it all looks very solid.



The only thing that I would suggest at this stage is to add an example that
shows the use of some of the new terms in representing some typical data.
All the ontology stuff is clear but quite abstract and difficult for some
people (me!) to get my head round.  With Section 5.4 ("Example: Gridded
coverage described using QB4ST") looks like you already have that planned -
but would definitely be handy to fill that section in.



I've made a pull request fixing a couple of minor typos I spotted (
https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/610) and standardising the spelling of
'specialization' - it appeared in different places in the doc with an 's'
or a 'z' and I understand we're meant to use US English spelling.  I think
that US English generally uses a z in words like this.



Cheers



Bill