W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > April 2015


From: Mcgibbney, Lewis J (398M) <Lewis.J.Mcgibbney@jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 16:50:08 +0000
To: "Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au" <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D14BF55B.10115%lewis.j.mcgibbney@jpl.nasa.gov>
Hi Kerry,

Hi Lewis, Welcome to the group!

Thank you

Your use case is indeed relevant. For this group proponents are asked to put it on our wiki here: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Working_Use_Cases

I’m looking into doing it right now.

It would be helpful if you edit it slightly in order to conform to our informal style

I am going to bring up Yolanda’s suggestion (on the first call I attended and scribed for) of establishing a structure and organization for use cases
Is there are reason the WG is deciding to not implement a structured and organized approach to gathering Use Cases? Some of the existing use cases are two sentences long!!! Others are paragraphs in length with scenarios and bullet points highlighting key issues. This seems very ad-hoc to me and I am not sure that the use case fits in based on the lack of apparent structure. Can you or someone else please comment?

--- especially check out our charted and annotate it with the deliverables (see our charter for their definition) to which  this use case refers. Please see the very first use cases which is a template.  Please make it very clear to readers that  that your requirements references are to a DIFFERENT set of requirements (or just remove them).

I’ve already commented on the Deliverables in a previous email thread .
By ‘annotate it with deliverables’ you mean tag it with one or more of “OWL Time Ontology, SSN Ontology and/or Coverage in LD”. This seems awfully restrictive does it not?
My interpretation of the process of gathering use cases is that the process is kind of rigged towards gathering use cases which conveniently fall into the categories of requiring development of the above three technologies/data representation formats! Does this make sense to you? I am not trying to be awkward I am just trying to understand if and how any NASA Earth/Planetary science project I am working on actually fits into the group deliverables.

Also, I think today we kind-of finished working through the use cases for now – but please do put it up anyway. And we will get back to it.

I’ll see what your/the groups response is.
Thank you very much
Received on Thursday, 9 April 2015 16:50:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:15 UTC