Re: Wanted: feedback on UCR requirements

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


On 6 July 2016 at 14:00, Frans Knibbe <> 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:
> <>
> ISSUE-20 <> (SSN)
> ISSUE-23 <> (Best
> Practices)
> ISSUE-24 <> (SSN)
> ISSUE-26 <> (Time)
> ISSUE-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 <>:
>> 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
>> <>
>> 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 13:10:59 UTC