W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > August 2016

Re: Wanted: feedback on UCR requirements

From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:00:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFVDz43CcPz9Ohg-Lwqu7fHCrqo5CoK+r6qa5af+7+CiGWtd8Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>
Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Thank you Bill. Nothing earthshaking, I like that. Everything considered
the only thing that needs to change is link the tiling requirement to the
Coverage deliverable. I will do that now.

About requirments being at odds: Yes that could be the case. But the UC&R
are about identifying problems, not about how to solve them. And it should
be clear to everyone that listing a requirement does not mean it will be
met.

Regards,
Frans

On 15 August 2016 at 16:58, Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2016 12:01:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:25 UTC