Re: Editorial amendments to UCR

Thanks, Phil! I've just accepted the pull request.

Today, I will try to reply Frans' pending emails and address the latest
comments on the spreadsheet (SSN, Time and Coverage) to integrate them into
the UCR document, between ESWC talks.

On the last telecon, there was a proposal to add tracker non-resolved
issues as warnings in the document. How is this done using ReSpec?

Cheers,
Alejandro

On 2 June 2015 at 00:12, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:

> Frans, Alejandro,
>
> I've been through the UCR today to make editorial changes of two types:
> - native speaker edits;
> - simplifying the spelling for our American friends (they do get so upset
> with metres and optimisations).
>
> I've also added a skeleton Acknowledgements section - to which you may or
> may not choose to add specific names.
>
> I've sent a pull request that you may or may not wish to accept.
>
> In doing this, I also have some more substantive comments (below). *None*
> of these, IMO, should be a brake on publishing an FPWD of the doc, they're
> just links between UCs that came to mind as I read through them all (yes, I
> read the doc from start to finish!).
>
> Not all the related requirements seem to show up. This might be a ReSpec
> thing, but it might be more serious. For example, Locating A Thing has
>
> <p class="relatedRequirements"><a href="#TimeDependentCRS"></a></p>
>
> But the text isn't being written into the hyperlink. Can you check these
> through please?
>
> use Cases 4.7 and 4.8 (your two Frans) perhaps relate to Andrea's one on
> the GeoDCAT-AP as well?
>
> 4.9 seems to relate to Ed's 4.6
>
> 4.9 also seems to relate to 5.45 and 5.51
>
> 4.10 refers to identifiers. The DWBP's BP Doc has a section on this - that
> I have an action item to improve in the coming 24 hours or so. That *might*
> be enough for SDW but time will tell.
>
> 4.14 seems to call for things like ID management, privacy etc. ?
>
>
> 4.15 has this:
> * Agreed-upon vocabulary for metadata about spatial datasets
>
> Which seems to relate to 4.7, 4.8 and Andrea's GeoDCAT one.
>
> 4.16 seems to call for very similar issues as 4.15. might they be combined?
>
> 4.18 has:
> * user can subset the data by x,y,z limits
>
> which looks like Jeremy's UC (4.2) ? See also 4.35 and 4.37
>
> 4.22 again looks like it relates to 4.7 and 4.8
>
> 4.24 looks really interesting - but what's the spatial angle?
>
> 4.28 looks very similar to Manolis's work on Greek forest fires - can they
> be combined do you think?
>
> 4.33 Seems to call for detailed provenance info - might that be a new req?
>
> 4.47 sounds like a whole new WG!
>
> HTH
>
> Phil.
>
> --
>
>
> Phil Archer
> W3C Data Activity Lead
> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
>



-- 
Alejandro Llaves

Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)

Artificial Intelligence Department

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Avda. Montepríncipe s/n

Boadilla del Monte, 28660 Madrid, Spain


http://www.oeg-upm.net/index.php/phd/325-allaves


allaves@fi.upm.es