Re: Wanted: feedback on UCR requirements

Hi Frank

The main things were:

- 5.14 seems to have some overlap with 5.15, and we had some discussions
(though no firm conclusion) on whether we need 5.14.  It is more specific
to coverages than 5.15 so perhaps worth keeping.
- 5.44 (streamable data) - it's not always feasible or sensible to stream
data.  In our discussions of coverage data, we concluded it may be partly
at odds with 5.3 (compressible data).

Other than that, I think you have already dealt with other things we
discussed under the heading of coverage.

In the section 6.4 cross-references, there are some other requirements
which we think are probably relevant to coverages, but I think you have
picked up the ones that are most coverage-specific, except perhaps Support
for Tiling, which we reckon is important for coverages.  If you could add
that to 6.4, that would be good.

Thanks

Bill




On 15 August 2016 at 14:55, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:

> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>