- From: Clemens Portele <portele@interactive-instruments.de>
- Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:53:30 +0200
- To: "Frans. Knibbe@Geodan. Nl" <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
- Cc: Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>, Kerry Taylor <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, john.machin@abs.gov.au
- Message-Id: <4895BF4F-5F7C-46E1-8632-19FD58A45C2E@interactive-instruments.de>
Hi Frans, I like you proposal. It nicely brings some parallel discussion threads together - and without requiring additonal pages/documents beside the existing deliverables. Best regards, Clemens > On 21 Apr 2015, at 11:27, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote: > > 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:harth@kit.edu>> >> To: <public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto: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 <mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> > www.geodan.nl <http://www.geodan.nl/> > disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer> >
Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2015 09:54:04 UTC