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

Re: UCR issue-20 and issue-24

From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 13:57:03 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFVDz42B+OsJke9x4UJdvtpKWP84rfn1EEKqzgPu3O7sVwsiVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
Cc: "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Hello Kerry,

About issue-20 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/20>: So there
is agreement within the SSN team that the requirement
<http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#ReferenceExternalVocabularies>
is both clear (to the team and to the general public) and in scope? If I
close issue-20, the requirement will stay as it is. To me it is not
entirely clear from the minutes that this is the wish of the SSN team.

I have closed action-186 and issue-24 by updating the UCR document. The
minutes show that you took time for careful wording of the requirement,
thank you for that.

Regards,
Frans





On 13 July 2016 at 00:17, Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au> wrote:

> The ssn meeting discussed these issues this morning. We resolved to invite
> the UCR editors to
>
> (a)    Close issue-20 (see action-184 on Frans)
>
> (b)   Fix issue-24  by replacing requirement by  "show how the ssn
> ontology can be applied in the context of lightweight IoT needs". See
> action-186 on Frans.
>
> For the latter there was some suggestion that that new requirement then
> needs to be further refined to more specific requirements, but the meeting
> felt that this was sufficient as phrased here.
>
>
>
> Frans, please take this phrasing of the requirement as the intention of
> the meeting not necessarily quite the right wording which you may prefer to
> modify.
>
>
>
> See minutes: https://www.w3.org/2016/07/12-sdwssn-minutes
>
>
>
> Kerry
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 13 July 2016 11:57:35 UTC

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