RE: [sdw] ssn meeting this week + process of changes to WD until then

I think I favour 2.   1 is too hard.   I am happy with 3  but only subject to additional   and systematic checks of care  by editors (there are several counter examples to this working effectively   in the past 2 weeks).



--Kerry
From: Armin Haller [mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au]
Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2016 10:54 AM
To: Krzysztof Janowicz <jano@geog.ucsb.edu>
Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [sdw] ssn meeting this week + process of changes to WD until then

That’s definitely without question, all editors should be able to edit. But do we edit directly to the main branch, in our own branches with Pull requests that we can accept ourselves or with Pull requests that some other editor has to accept.

From: Krzysztof Janowicz <jano@geog.ucsb.edu<mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu>>
Date: Monday, 19 December 2016 at 9:59 pm
To: Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au<mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>>
Cc: "public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: [sdw] ssn meeting this week + process of changes to WD until then

I am traveling and cannot join the meeting. I would vote that all editors can edit the document. After all this is what editors do :-). I would suggest the same for the ontology code as such, e.g. SOSA.

All the best,
Krzysztof

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au<mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>> wrote:
As agreed in the F2F on Friday, we will have one more meeting before Christmas on the 20th of December at our usual time (see below) to agree on outstanding pull request to the document at http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/ + all four ontology files that are linked from the WD or should be linked, i.e.:
https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/ssn_separated/ssn.owl

https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/rdf/sosa.ttl

https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/ssn_separated/ssn_equivalences.owl

https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/ssn_separated/dul-alignment.owl

Until the meeting changes can be made to the document and the ontologies, but only via commits to your own branch and by issuing a PULL request. No one, BUT Danh should commit anything to the main branch of any of these four files. This was agreed upon in the meeting. This is not the process we will go forward from Tuesday onwards and in the meeting, we will need to agree on a way forward that is ok for all four editors. If you cannot attend the meeting, please do propose the best way forward, keeping in mind that we have separate requirements to the BP editors, as we have several ontology files that also need to be in sync with the document.
Agenda for SSN-focused meeting 20 December 2016 21:00 UTC<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20161206T21&ah=1&msg=SSN%20Call>

  1.  Approving pending change requests on WD document and agree on frozen state for vote on 4th of January
  2.  Commit Workflow going forward

Further details and dial in instructions: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:SSN-Telecon20161220


Re 2: There are three distinct workflows that I can think of we can proceed with after our meeting. Please propose other solutions if you can think of a better way of doing it:


1.       All commits to the WD + the ontologies the WD depends upon regardless if you are an editor or not need to be committed to your own branch and pull requests need to be issued for EACH commit. The Pull request needs to be approved by an editor other than the one who made the change. This also means that once you have committed your changes and a PULL request, until your PULL request is accepted, you need to create a new Branch again in your repository.

2.       All commits to the WD + the ontologies the WD depends upon regardless if you are editor or not need to be committed to your own branch and pull requests need to be issued, but multiple commits can be made in each PULL request. The Pull request needs to be approved by an editor other than the one who made the change. This also means that once you have committed your changes and a PULL request, until your PULL request is accepted, you need to create a new Branch again in your repository.

3.       Editors commit all changes to WD + the ontologies directly to the gh-branch, whereas all other working group members commits to their own branch and pull requests need to be issued for EACH commit. The Pull request needs to be approved by an editor. This still means for non-editors that once you have committed your changes and a PULL request, until your PULL request is accepted, you need to create a new Branch again in your repository.

Please do think of your preferred way going forward. I am personally in favour of (3) for speed and ease of use.

Kind regards,
Armin