Re: Princples...

Hello all,

I notice Principle no. 1 (The linkabilty of Geospatial Information
published on the web should be improved) largely coincides with the
linkability requirement that we have already identified. This leads me to
the question: what is the relationship between requirements and principles?
I think there is a good chance that the princples are the same as the
non-functional requirements that we talked about in this thread
<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Apr/0036.html>.

Now this thead shows that there is a desire to make non-functional
requirements explicit. So how about adding a chapter the the UCR document
to decribe non-functional requirements? Like functional requirements, we
could link non-functional requirements to deliverables. This thread is
specifically about the Best Practices, but some principles could also apply
to other deliverables.

Regards,
Frans



2015-04-20 12:25 GMT+02:00 Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>:

> hi all,
>
> thanks for your contributions i think all are really relevant, however I
> think we need to get the level of these right, perhaps the last couple are
> a bit too detailed and are more how rather than why.. we should aim for
> principles that describe what we are trying to acheive not how we achieve
> them...
>
> Happy to debate this point of course...
>
> ed
>
> Ed Parsons
> Geospatial Technologist, Google
>
> Sent from a mobile device, excuse my thumbs..
> On 20 Apr 2015 03:27, <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au> wrote:
>
>>  Here's 2 suggestions ( that may need improvement).
>>
>>  No 5. That community good practice for 5 star linked data be followed,
>> including the use of so-called cool uris and  ontology annotations (
>> references need to be attached)
>>
>>  No 6. That ontologies  conform (" are valid" ? check) to the language
>> of  owl2 dl.
>> (The latter is important for spatial and temporal reasoning.)
>>
>>  No 7. ( perhaps number  0) That these principles are aimed specifically
>> at data published in RDF but where appropriate may also apply to other
>> spatial data published on the web.
>>
>>
>> Kerry
>>
>>  On 20 Apr 2015, at 8:17 am, "John Machin" <john.machin@abs.gov.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>   Hi Ed, Andreas,
>>
>> I like the proposed principles so far.
>>
>> Based on some of the comments in the last call, I wonder if we have to
>> have a principle related to keeping the practices up to date?
>>
>> I realise that this might over-commitment from a WG with a specified
>> lifespan but if maintaining currency is a principle then the two sponsor
>> organisations may be encouraged to reconvene WGs to review and update the
>> Best Practices periodically.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> *-- John Machin*
>>
>> <graycol.gif>Andreas Harth ---18/04/2015 05:57:59 AM---Hi Ed, On
>> 2015-04-16 14:10, Ed Parsons wrote:
>>
>> From: Andreas Harth <harth@kit.edu>
>> To: <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>,
>> Date: 18/04/2015 05:57 AM
>> Subject: Re: Princples...
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Ed,
>>
>> On 2015-04-16 14:10, Ed Parsons wrote:
>> > So to start the ball rolling....
>> >
>> > Princple No.1 : The linkabilty of Geospatial Information published on
>> > the web should be improved.
>> >
>> [...]
>> >
>> > Princple No.2 : We will not reinvent
>> >
>> [...]
>> >
>> > Feel free to add to these, develop more ... when we reach a level of
>> > agreement I will transfer them over to the wiki
>>
>> How about the following?
>>
>> Principle No.3 : Best Practices have to be visible.
>>
>> We will link to at least one (or two, three?) publicly available
>> example(s) of a non-toy dataset that follows the best practice.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Andreas.
>>
>>
>>


-- 
Frans Knibbe
Geodan
President Kennedylaan 1
1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)

T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
www.geodan.nl
disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>