Re: W3C GLD WG Thur 8-Mar-2012

Providing an appendix to summarize the issues in the document is a good idea. An improvement of this approach can be to reference the issue directly in each related section. This way we can know better which sections are done and which ones need more work.

Luis
-------------
Luis Bermudez
lbermudez@opengeospatial.org  
+1 (301) 760-7323 

The OGC: Making Location Count...
http://www.opengeospatial.org/contact




On Mar 15, 2012, at 9:02 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:

> On 09/03/12 13:19, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 18:20 +0000, Dave Reynolds wrote:
>>> Sorry to have missed the call (I did say I was "at risk").
>>> 
>>> I see the following in the minutes:
>>> 
>>> "PROPOSED: Publish Data Cube Vocabular Spec FPWD, after adding a
>>> reference to ISSUE-32 (worked out between lbermudez and the editors)"
>>> 
>>> What's the reason for referencing ISSUE-32 specifically?
>>> 
>>> I could see some value in an Editor's Note pointing that there are a
>>> number of logged issues that *may* be addressed in future versions.
>>> However, I didn't follow the rationale for treating ISSUE-32 differently
>>> from the others.
>> 
>> Simply that Luis thought it was important to do so (and no one saw a
>> problem with doing so).
>> 
>> I think it would be good practice, actually, the make sure every open
>> ISSUE is mentioned in some editor's note in the relevant document,
>> although maybe in a few cases there's no way to do that clearly.
> 
> OK.
> 
> I've added an appendix [1] to the document to give a summary of each of the raised ISSUES and link to the full ISSUE list entry. I've put what I hope is a suitable caveat that we're making no promises to address all of these.
> 
> Let me know if this seems acceptable.
> 
> Dave
> 
> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/data-cube/index.html#issues
>

Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 14:58:04 UTC