Re: Wanted: feedback on UCR requirements

Hello Bill,

I am about to finalise the next version of the UC&R document. Has the
coverage subgroup found anything that could or should be changed in that
document? Missing requirements? Missing use cases? Unclear requirements?
Requirements that should or should not be linked to the coverage
deliverable? Anything else?

Greetings,
Frans

On 6 July 2016 at 15:10, Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com> wrote:

> Hi Frans
>
> Sorry for my lack of response so far.  I am about to go back through the
> UCR requirements with respect to the work of the coverage subgroup, so I
> can give you some detailed feedback within the next week or so.
>
> Best regards
>
> Bill
>
> On 6 July 2016 at 14:00, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
>
>> Dear editors,
>>
>> I haven't had much response to my question so far. So as an aid, here is
>> a list of the open issues marked in the current UCR draft:
>>
>> <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/20>
>> ISSUE-20 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/20> (SSN)
>> ISSUE-23 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/23> (Best
>> Practices)
>> ISSUE-24 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/24> (SSN)
>> ISSUE-26 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/26> (Time)
>> ISSUE-28 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/28> (Best
>> Practices)
>>
>> Wouldn't it be nice if we can resolve these issues before the next and
>> final PWD of the UCR document this month?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Frans
>>
>>
>>
>> 2016-06-22 13:12 GMT+02:00 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>:
>>
>>> Dear editors of the BP/Time/SSN/Coverage deliverable,
>>>
>>> In preparation of a next public working draft of the UCR document I
>>> would like to ask you for feedback on the requirements for your deliverable
>>> as specified in the UCR document. Section 6
>>> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#RequirementsByDeliverable>
>>> list requirements grouped by deliverable. By now you will have stared long
>>> & hard at those requirements, and perhaps you concluded that some or not
>>> clear yet, or that something else is wrong. Perhaps requirements or even
>>> important use cases are missing?
>>>
>>> While we are working on a new batch of publications before TPAC, it
>>> would be nice if the requirements in the UCR document are (among) the ones
>>> you are actually working with. I think the public we are writing for
>>> deserves that coherence. I presume your deliverables will link back to the
>>> UCR document and explain how requirements are met or why requirements are
>>> not met. So if you think any changes are required in the UCR document
>>> resulting from your work on your deliverable, please inform me.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Frans
>>>
>>
>>
>