RE: Wanted: feedback on UCR requirements from Linda van den Brink on 2016-07-12 (public-sdw-wg@w3.org from July 2016)

From: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 14:17:07 +0000
To: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>, 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" <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>
Message-ID: <13F9BF0BE056DA42BFE5AA6E476CDEFE725EF5BF@GNMSRV01.gnm.local>

Hi Frans,

We (the BP editors) have discussed the BP issues and concluded:

-          issue 23: We think this issue can be closed because in our view the wording as it currently is for this requirement in the UCR is fine. We will try to address the questions that are raised in the issue in the BP. I created an issue in Github so we don’t forget. https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/298


-          issue 28: The requirement according to us three is: “that clients or users must always be able to determine what CRS is used.” This could be because it’s present in the data in some form, or because it’s determined by the spec (and this could be that if unspecified in the data, there’s some default).  In the BP we will go into the question of when a more precise CRS than WGS84 is needed. We hope this helps us resolve the issue.

Linda

Van: Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
Verzonden: woensdag 6 juli 2016 15:01
Aan: Jeremy Tandy; Linda van den Brink; Payam Barnaghi; Simon Cox; Chris Little; Krzysztof Janowicz; Armin Haller; danh.lephuoc@deri.org; Bill Roberts; Kerry Taylor
CC: SDW WG Public List
Onderwerp: 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 Tuesday, 12 July 2016 14:17:40 UTC