Re: moving the use case document to FPWD

Jeremy and Davide, I switched over to my Linux box for editing tomorrow and expect to finish by tomorrow.  You will see a small commit today from me, I was just testing authentication for a push out on the server.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 12, 2014, at 3:20 PM, "Tandy, Jeremy" <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk> wrote:
> 
> Eric, Davide ... many thanks to you both!
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> PS: see this email thread<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-csv-wg/2014Mar/0079.html>; Ross Jones has offered to add more detail about CSV to RDF conversion relevant for CKAN's preview of CSV files at data.gov.uk ... I'll try to incorporate his amendments on Monday
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ceolin, D. [mailto:d.ceolin@vu.nl] 
> Sent: 12 March 2014 21:47
> To: Eric Stephan
> Cc: Tandy, Jeremy; W3C CSV on the Web Working Group
> Subject: Re: moving the use case document to FPWD
> 
> Jeremy, Eric,
> 
> sure, no problem. I'll finish to amend UC#20 and #22 and take care of UC#21.
> Cheers,
> 
> Davide
> 
>> Il giorno 12/mar/2014, alle ore 22.40, Eric Stephan ha scritto:
>> 
>> Jeremy and Davide,
>> 
>> My responses are below using a >> and capital letters.  By use of the 
>> capital letters I'm not shouting just helping making answers more 
>> visible.  :-)
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Eric
>> 
>> 
>> 1)      [Eric] add use case #16 City of Palo Alto tree data
>> 
>>>> YES
>> 
>> 2)      [Eric] add use case #21 Displaying locations of care homes on a map
>> 
>>>> POSSIBLY ADDED TO DAVIDE'S LIST?
>> 
>> 
>> 4)      [Eric] tease out and make explicit the requirements in use
>> cases #7, #12 and #17 ... noting the implied "microsyntax" requirement 
>> in #7
>> 
>>>> YES
>> 
>> 
>> Also, Eric: we previously talked about adding a use case about ncdump 
>> (netcdf dump). Is this still necessary / feasible?
>> 
>>>> YES
>> 
>> Davide: it seems Eric has a lot still to do ... are you able to take 
>> action #2 (adding use case #21 Displaying locations of care homes on a 
>> map). Please refer to my earlier email for my thoughts on that use 
>> case (not much to say - but could be helpful).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Tandy, Jeremy 
>> <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk> wrote:
>>> Hi - in today's teleconf we agreed a number of things to complete for 
>>> Monday.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 1)      [Eric] add use case #16 City of Palo Alto tree data
>>> 
>>> 2)      [Eric] add use case #21 Displaying locations of care homes on a map
>>> 
>>> 3)      [Davide] complete amendments to use cases about "intelligent
>>> preview" and "representing entities and facts" - see emails here and here.
>>> 
>>> 4)      [Eric] tease out and make explicit the requirements in use cases #7,
>>> #12 and #17 ... noting the implied "microsyntax" requirement in #7
>>> 
>>> 5)      [Jeremy] renumber use cases into sequential order
>>> 
>>> 6)      [Jeremy] cluster requirements as proposed by JeniT
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> We agreed that there were not, at this time, latent requirements from 
>>> CSV-LD or CSV2RDF discussion threads.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Also, Eric: we previously talked about adding a use case about ncdump 
>>> (netcdf dump). Is this still necessary / feasible?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Davide: it seems Eric has a lot still to do ... are you able to take 
>>> action #2 (adding use case #21 Displaying locations of care homes on 
>>> a map). Please refer to my earlier email for my thoughts on that use 
>>> case (not much to say
>>> - but could be helpful).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I'll do actions #5 and #6 on Monday morning based on the structure of 
>>> the document I see at that point in time - so expect the use case 
>>> numbers to have changed by Monday lunch time!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please let me know if I've got any of this wrong J
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> BR, Jeremy
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2014 23:39:02 UTC