- From: Benedikt Kämpgen <kaempgen@fzi.de>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 18:42:19 +0100
- To: 'Dave Reynolds' <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>, Government Linked Data Working Group <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
Dear Dave, all Thanks for your effort in consolidating the data cube issues [4] and mentioning them in the current spec. I do not want to make the process of raising new issues more difficult, but I am wondering whether solving and discussing issues would be easier if they would be based on use cases and requirements mentioned in our use case document [5]: * ISSUE-29: Criteria for well-formedness: This issue is required by all use cases and specifically mentioned at [1] * ISSUE-30: Declaring relations between cubes is mentioning a use case which is also described in the use case document at [2] * ISSUE-31: Supporting aggregation for other than SKOS hierarchies is not covered by any use case. Does that mean we should add a use case, e.g., dealing with geographic information? * ISSUE-32: Relationship to ISO19156 - Observations & Measurements? is covered by use case [3] * ISSUE-33: Collections of observations and well-formedness of slices mentions use cases (bathing water quality use case, air quality use case), which are however not included in the use case document. * ISSUE-34: Clarify or drop qb:subslice ? Here, no relation to any use case is made. Best, Benedikt > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Reynolds [mailto:dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 6:10 PM > To: Government Linked Data Working Group > Subject: Data Cube issues > > I've generated a consolidated list of issues for the Data Cube vocabulary and, > as you will have seen :), registered them on the tracker. > > These derive from mail list discussions and usage experience over the last > year or so, including discussions with Richard prior to joining the working > group. > > Note: > > (1) Just because there is an issue on the tracker does NOT mean we will > tackle it during this working group. We may well decide some of these are > out of scope or it is premature to address them and so put them in > POSTPONED. However, there is still value in recording them. > > (2) The list is obviously not closed, there may well be other issues that > vocabulary users have identified that haven't yet been recorded. > > (3) If any of the folks on the Data Cube subgroup, most especially Richard, > would like to clarify any of the issues I've captured then feel free to improve > the text in the tracker or raise it in email and I'll attempt improvement. > > Dave > > [You may see a duplicate of this message sent from the wrong email account, > if so - apologies] >
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 17:42:48 UTC