Re: comments on UCR

Hi Rachel,

thanks for your comments! See my answers below:

On 2 June 2015 at 15:08, Heaven, Rachel E. <reh@bgs.ac.uk> wrote:

>  Frans, Alejandro
> Thank you for all your work on this. My comments on the UCR document:
>
> 5.6 CRS definition, 5.8 Default CRS
> If the URI of the CRS must always be specified, then there won’t be any
> cases when a default CRS would be needed. Is 5.8 redundant now ? Or does it
> need to be re-worded to make it clearer in which cases this would be
> applicable ? It looks a bit contradictory to me as it is.
>

Well, having a requirement (or best practice) saying that CRS shall be
specified does not mean that all data providers are going to do it. For
those cases, it would be good to define a default CRS.


>
> Missing requirements?:
> As noted by Phil below, I think a requirement along the lines of “It
> should be possible to request a subset or slice of a coverage dataset” is
> missing. Similar to 5.35 [Reference data chunks] but this is about getting
> hold of the data not just having an identifier for it.
> From use cases 4.18 , 4.45,  4.37 (and 4.2?)
>
> I also think we are missing a requirement along the lines of “It should be
> possible to combine datasets, selecting the most appropriate where coverage
> overlaps”.  Or to break this requirement down we could extend the data
> subsetting requirement (and/or 5.35) so that a user can create and
> reference excluded subsets of a dataset ie the data chunk can have holes in
> it.
> From use cases 4.18, 4.32, 4.34, 4.35
>
>
Use case cross references:
> Use case 4.26 could also relate to 5.4, 5.7
>
>

New use cases have to be discussed by the group, could you please raise a
related issue?

Additional relations between UCs and reqs. will be added after the voting
for the FPWD.


> Typos:
> Use case 4.18
> New line and bullet point has not been transferred from the use case
> working document, needs inserting just before “to represent complex geology
> (folding, faulting, intrusions”
>
>
Fixed


> Use case 4.26
> s/tatic data/static data
>
>
Fixed


> 5.15, 5.16
> s/it should possible/it should be possible
>
>
Fixed


> 5.49 (Linda has already raised the other change on this line)
> s/It should be possbible for Coordinate/It should be possible for
> Coordinate
>

Fixed


>
> 5.56
> s/It should be possible to valdidate/It should be possible to validate
>
>
>
Fixed


> Best wishes,
> Rachel
>
>

Cheers,
Alejandro


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org <phila@w3.org>]
> Sent: 01 June 2015 23:12
> To: SDW WG Public List; Frans Knibbe | Geodan; Alejandro Llaves
> Subject: Editorial amendments to UCR
>
> 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
>
>
>  *  ________________________________  *
> This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is
> subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this
> email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt
> from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in
> an electronic records management system.
>



-- 
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