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

Re: Resolving UCR issues

From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:35:55 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFVDz43EGUoRuVHEoTnUkmBX0Lr26JB7KwvjeJ8mb2yv20HiVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>, Kerry Taylor <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>
Cc: Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Hello Ed, Kerry,

Today's meeting showed that it is difficult to resolve an issue with a vote
in a meeting. It's a pity we did not have time for the second item on the
agenda. But still we need to have a way of resolving issues. Could there be
other ways of having the group members critically assess a proposed
solution at more or less the same time?

It seems to me that much of the discussion we have had today could have
taken place in the e-mail thread. Maybe there is a way to encourage
discussion on a particular issue on the list in a particular time window?
Or should there be extra teleconferences?

Regards,
Frans

2015-06-23 11:56 GMT+02:00 Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>:

> Hi Frans,
>
> Thanks for the reminder - I have sent the relevant request to the systems
> team to set up the automatic e-mail notification when new issues and
> actions are raised.
>
> Phil
>
> On 23/06/2015 10:13, Frans Knibbe wrote:
>
>> 2015-06-23 10:32 GMT+02:00 Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>:
>>
>>  Yes, this is a good idea. There are also "raised" (pending) issues
>>> related
>>> to the UCR document and to me it is not clear which is the right
>>> procedure
>>> to fix them.
>>>
>>>
>> I don't think there is an official procedure. What I would like to suggest
>> (and have been doing) is:
>>
>>     1. Raise an issue.
>>     2. Make sure there is at least one associated e-mail thread (Phil
>>     mentioned that should happen automatically but so far that has not
>> happened
>>     in our case).
>>     3. Debate the issue in the e-mail list.
>>     4. Once the debate seems to be finished propose a solution and change
>>     the status of the issue to 'pending review'.
>>     5. Make a final decision. For instance, accept the proposed solution
>> in
>>     a meeting.
>>
>> If we could keep up a rate of resolving one issue each week we should have
>> an issue-free document this year :-)
>>
>> Saludos,
>> Frans
>>
>>
>>
>>  Cheers,
>>> Alejandro
>>>
>>> On 22 June 2015 at 21:46, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hello Ed,
>>>>
>>>> At the moment three UCR issues have the status 'pending review'. Of
>>>> those, I think ISSUE-10 <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/10
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> seems a good one to try to resolve.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know how long it will take to reach agreement. Perhaps it will
>>>> help if resolving a particular issue is a separate agenda item. That
>>>> should
>>>> allow people to read up on the subject beforehand and to raise any
>>>> problems
>>>> with the proposed solution in the e-mail list. Ideally there will be no
>>>> need for further discussion in the meeting and we can just have the
>>>> vote.
>>>>
>>>> Greetings,
>>>> Frans
>>>>
>>>> 2015-06-22 20:38 GMT+02:00 Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>:
>>>>
>>>>  Hello Frans,
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have a specific issue in mind, and some idea as to how long we
>>>>> will need to discuss. Kerry is putting this weeks agenda together
>>>>> tomorrow..
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 at 17:43 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  Hello Ed, Kerry,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We still have some unresolved UCR issues. I believe it was Kerry who
>>>>>> suggested that we might  use the weekly teleconference to try to
>>>>>> resolve
>>>>>> one selected issue. Do you think there is time for that in the next
>>>>>> meetings? If so, then I suggest we start with issues that relate to
>>>>>> Best
>>>>>> Practices because that is our next deliverable. Or we could have one
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>> UCR editors suggest an issue, and perhaps also do a bit of
>>>>>> preparation of
>>>>>> the issue to facilitate decision making.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Frans
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed Parsons
>>>>> Geospatial Technologist, Google
>>>>>
>>>>> Mobile +44 (0)7825 382263
>>>>> www.edparsons.com @edparsons
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
>
>
> Phil Archer
> W3C Data Activity Lead
> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
>



-- 
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>
Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2015 14:36:25 UTC

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