Re: [sdwwg] for those not in the meeting today

Simon, see my comments below.

On 21 May 2015 at 06:01, <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:

>  Gosh – are comments in the spreadsheet still the right way to provide
> input?
>

Yes, they are. We thought that the better way to collect comments from all
the members of the group is a collaborative document. In this case, with so
many UCs and requirements (x4 deliverables), a google spreadsheet has
worked like a charm. But we are open for new ways of handling this kind of
procedures, if you want to propose alternatives.

>  1.      The requirements do not have the numbers from the draft document.
>
You are right. The point here is that the draft html document is constantly
evolving, thus numbering can get outdated very quickly. In the case of the
SSN, Time and Coverage deliverables, each requirement has a keyword, e.g.
Sensor metadata, which is used in the html document as identifier. Frans is
taking care of the Best Practice deliverable and he can tell you how this
is handled there.

>From the very beginning, the work was organized like this:

   - Group members propose UCs on the wiki and ALL TOGETHER extract (some)
   requirements that are linked to UCs on the spreadsheet. Then, the
   spreadsheet is revised by group members until all the UCs and requirements
   are properly related. This task is ongoing since March, after the F2F
   meeting in Barcelona.
   - Editors (Frans and myself) transcribe the content of the spreadsheet
   to the offcial W3C format (html), merge redundant requirements, refine
   them, and raise issues where discussion is needed.

We began editing the html document with an incomplete spreadsheet because
feedback from UCs contributors was arriving slowly and we committed to have
a decent First Public Working Draft by June. Luckily, the spreadsheet is
getting lots of comments in the last days :)


>  2.      How do the editors detect the new ones?
>
Basically, I check once a week the tabs in the spreadsheet of the
deliverables I manage and look for new comments (actually, I get an email
every time someone adds a comment). The comments normally identify missing
links between UCs and requirements, and provide examples. Sometimes, the
comments propose to add a new requirement. We, as editors, can add the new
requirement and remove the comment, or reply to the comment if we think
something is wrong, or even raise an issue to the tracker and the mailing
list if we think the topic needs to be discussed.


>
>
> (FWIW I just added comments to cell
>
> SSN- Y1
>
> R17, R19
>
> Y19
>
> AA17, AA19, AA24
>
> Z28
>
> Time – H18
>
>
>

Thanks for your comments!

Cheers,
Alejandro

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Taylor, Kerry (Digital, Acton)
> *Sent:* Thursday, 21 May 2015 1:24 PM
> *To:* Cox, Simon (L&W, Highett); public-sdw-wg@w3.org;
> isimonis@opengeospatial.org
>
> *Subject:* RE: [sdwwg] for those not in the meeting today
>
>
>
> Simon and others,
>
> Yes, I saw that, but I could not understand the problem.... Ok, now I see.
> You are asked to take these actions on the spreadsheet here: (linked on the
> wiki main page)
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PSnpJYQDgsdgZgPJEfUU0EhVfgFFYGc1WL4xUX9Dunk/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Please check rows corresponding to your use cases  on each of the 4 sheets
> and mark any suggested changes with a “comment”.
>
>
>
> Thanks for the OGC advice – we can do that.
>
>
>
> I believe  SDWWG chair Ed Parsons will be attending  at GeoSemantics DWG
> at Boulder.
>
> Kerry
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Cox, Simon (L&W, Highett)
> *Sent:* Thursday, 21 May 2015 9:35 AM
> *To:* Taylor, Kerry (Digital, Acton); public-sdw-wg@w3.org;
> isimonis@opengeospatial.org
> *Subject:* RE: [sdwwg] for those not in the meeting today
>
>
>
> Ø  Please complete any actions you have for the UCR ASAP
>
>
>
> Tried do this yesterday, but was stymied by broken links in the tracker,
> as noted in email to the list. Since it is not possible for me to complete
> the action using the information provided, I will vote *against* the
> document moving forward. *Need some assistance here please*.
>
>
>
>
> Would also help if emails like this, requesting action, *included the
> links* to the relevant materials.
>
>
>
> Ø  I am not sure if there is something appropriate to be done through the
> OGC to reflect this status as well?
>
>
>
> 1.      The document should be posted to OGC ‘Pending Documents’
>
> 2.      The matter should be raised on the Geosemantics DWG list
>
>
>
> Since the document is processed according to W3C rules, there is a
> misalignment with the OGC process (in which documents are usually closer to
> finalization before going public), so there is probably no part of the
> formal OGC process to be invoked here. But there is a reasonable
> expectation of a courtesy briefing. Note that OGC TC is meeting in Boulder
> the week including 3rd June, so there is an opportunity for the SDWWG
> chairs to formally brief the Geosemantics DWG on progress.
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> *From:* Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au [mailto:Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au
> <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 21 May 2015 12:25 AM
> *To:* public-sdw-wg@w3.org; isimonis@opengeospatial.org
> *Subject:* [ExternalEmail] [sdwwg] for those not in the meeting today
>
>
>
> Sdwwg,
>
> We plan to release the Use Cases and Requirements document, our first
> deliverable, as a  W3C First Public Working Draft,
>
> by a vote at the meeting on 3rd June. Please complete any actions you
> have for the UCR ASAP, and also be ready to feel comfortable about the vote
> (ie raise anything that might get in the way!).
>
>
>
> I am not sure if there is something appropriate to be done through the OGC
> to reflect this status as well? Any advice anyone?
>
>
>
> Kerry
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
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