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

RE: Wanted: feedback on UCR requirements

From: <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 03:39:05 +0000
To: <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>, <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>, <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, <payam.barnaghi@gmail.com>, <janowicz@ucsb.edu>, <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, <danh.lephuoc@deri.org>, <bill@swirrl.com>, <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
CC: <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8abd44c3c45a445eb379f0704ac70cf3@exch1-mel.nexus.csiro.au>
Ø  I have written a substantial, and hopefully, accurate summary of Issue 26, and closed it.

Where?

From: Little, Chris [mailto:chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk]
Sent: Friday, 8 July 2016 1:15 AM
To: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>; Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>; Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>; Payam Barnaghi <payam.barnaghi@gmail.com>; Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; 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>
Subject: RE: Wanted: feedback on UCR requirements

Hi Frans,

I have written a substantial, and hopefully, accurate summary of Issue 26, and closed it.

I think all the concerns raised were addressed, if not all adopted.

There are couple of outstanding documentation tasks:
Official definitions of a Temporal Reference System, etc;
Examples for Issue-15 : using OWL-Time and other predicates to refer to and between past, present and future resources

Chris

From: Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 2:01 PM
To: Jeremy Tandy; Linda van den Brink; Payam Barnaghi; Simon Cox; Little, Chris; Krzysztof Janowicz; Armin Haller; danh.lephuoc@deri.org<mailto:danh.lephuoc@deri.org>; Bill Roberts; Kerry Taylor
Cc: SDW WG Public List
Subject: Re: Wanted: feedback on UCR requirements

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:

<https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/20>
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?

Regards,
Frans



2016-06-22 13:12 GMT+02:00 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl<mailto: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 Friday, 8 July 2016 03:39:54 UTC

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