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

Re: Wanted: feedback on UCR requirements

From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 15:00:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFVDz43OGy23vs9F9rrvLjzVBvxOWtGYR=L0t36H7Ww_qbMs-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, Payam Barnaghi <payam.barnaghi@gmail.com>, Simon Cox <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, Chris Little <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>, Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>, Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, danh.lephuoc@deri.org, Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>, Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
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:

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?


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 Wednesday, 6 July 2016 13:01:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:23 UTC