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

RE: UCR issue-20 and issue-24

From: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 12:12:04 +0000
To: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
CC: "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <PS1PR06MB174047498B394E34956774C7A4310@PS1PR06MB1740.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Frans – you are right neither the minutes nor my recording of an action did justice to our discussion… The discussion  covered some specific ontology concepts (e.g. UoM) that are commonly wanted to be used with SSN.

But  we agreed with your proposal that
t seems questionable if this requirement is in scope. The SSN vocabulary complies with Semantic Web or Linked Data standards, so naturally it is possible to use other vocabularies?

For that reason the meeting supported removing the requirement and closing the issue.

From: Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, 13 July 2016 9:57 PM
To: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: UCR issue-20 and issue-24

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.


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


Received on Wednesday, 13 July 2016 12:12:42 UTC

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