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

Re: Editorial amendments to UCR

From: Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 13:59:04 +0200
Message-ID: <CABTzy2RdD7z4CwxF4Q5ZBs90jPN_+VOjprjTtu3NmnoOet7vFw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, "Frans Knibbe | Geodan" <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
Thanks, Jeremy!

Thanks, Phil! I fixed the related reqs. for Locating a Thing. Wrt the rest
of the comments, some address relations between UCs and reqs. Those will be
taken into account after the FPWD is voted since there has been some reqs.
merged and removed. Other comments are about relationships between UCs,
that can be used to conflate them (if this is what you are suggesting) in
the following phase.

Cheers,
Alejandro

On 2 June 2015 at 12:12, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> wrote:

> In relation to this, please see my email in response to Action 47 [1] that
> shows how you can link the ISSUE class to the details in the issue tracker.
>
> Jeremy
>
> [1]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jun/0033.html
>
> On Tue, 2 Jun 2015 at 11:10 Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Alejandro,
>>
>> No mystery to adding an issue to the doc. You simply add in a Div with a
>> class of issue and then include a link to the relevant thing in Tracker.
>> e.g.
>>
>> <div class="issue">
>>    <p>This requirement is not clear. See <a
>> href="http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/15">Issue 15</a></p>
>> </div>
>>
>> And then this looks like, for example:
>>
>> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#h-issue1
>>
>> ReSpec puts in the IDs etc.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> On 02/06/2015 10:56, Alejandro Llaves wrote:
>> > 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
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> 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
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2015 11:59:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:17 UTC