RE: Changes to SSN document as discussed in London F2F on 15th of December

Thanks  for that Armin.
There are still 2 issue-999s in the ed draft. And there remains a problem with the actual ontologies on github being inconsistent with the ed draft  – I am not confident of the scope and impact of the differences myself but I can’t see how we can publish without at least a strategy for dealing with that.

I can  fix one of the issue-999s but I do not know how to tackle the latter other than re-generating  and re-fixing the specgen output and that is not going to happen in a day.

In a very recent mod kjano (https://github.com/w3c/sdw/commit/46c44592c7b9163ef27fdbe534f7ce3b17c2c25b)  has broken the layout of the SSN alignment section and it is rather unreadable now, but I am loth to fix it now at the risk of stuffing something else.  Trying to understand it better, it looks to me like that particular commit changed pretty much every line of index.html, and might be the source of some of the ugly layout that crept into the specgen output very late  as well.  Is this due to the editor you are using jano? We  need to debug this as we can’t afford to let it  happen again.

For now – I think we have no choice but to live with it.
We have to get better at this.

--Kerry







From: Armin Haller [mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au]
Sent: Friday, 16 December 2016 12:30 AM
To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Subject: Changes to SSN document as discussed in London F2F on 15th of December


Hi all,



In order to arrive at a status of the SSN document (http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/) that we can vote upon to be published as a WD on the second day of the F2F in London, I made some changes reflecting the decisions made in the SSN session of the first day of the F2F http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/. Specifically, the changes were:

·         All three “Issues 999” have been removed and two of them have been replaced by actual issues, i.e. https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/110 and https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/111


·         Section 8 has been removed from the document as it was included only after the document was published for review on Monday, and the issue the section is referring to is already in the work plan (Issue https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/53) and no priority can be given to that issue compared to others that are open.

·         Last sentence removed from Section 9 as it proposed a possible solution that we have not discussed in the group yet

·         Issue 108 and 109 added to the beginning of SOSA section, reflecting comments made on the mailing list

·         Some text removed from Issue 92 as it was proposing a solution/decision that has not been made yet.



Kind regards,

Armin