- From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 14:36:08 +0200
- To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFVDz40NQX-hREbt24U7_N8Q4QHZqsNYCS_Q4GzqbB3jSmBWnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Nobody has objected to the proposal, so I just merged the two requirements to form the single requirement Independence on reference systems <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#IndependenceOnReferenceSystems> . Regards, Frans 2016-06-07 18:45 GMT+02:00 Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>: > Hi Frans, > > > > Seems sensible to me. I cannot think of a reason to keep them separate. > > > > Chris > > > > *From:* Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl] > *Sent:* Monday, June 06, 2016 11:39 AM > *To:* SDW WG Public List > *Subject:* Merge requirements for non-geographic reference systems? > > > > Hello, > > > > Going through open UCR issues, I noticed issue-32 > <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/32>, which points out that > two requirements are remarkably similar: > > > http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#IndependenceOnReferenceSystems > and > http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#NonGeographicReferenceSystem > > > > The first is a requirement for BP and SSN, the second for Coverages. Those > different backgrounds may explain why the requirements are separate. But I > see little reason to keep it that way. Does anyone object to merging the > two requirements? That would result in one requirement with shared related > deliverables and use cases. > > > > Regards, > > Frans > > >
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2016 12:36:48 UTC