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

Re: Wanted: feedback on UCR requirements

From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 15:30:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFVDz43bF6QmCG5f_-fJwSqB7hVhb3saEVRW_wzxn_H-yfx83g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, Payam Barnaghi <payam.barnaghi@gmail.com>, Simon Cox <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, Kerry Taylor <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>, Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>, Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>
Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Dear fellow editors,

I am happy to report that the current draft of the UC&R is now free of
those pesky red notifications of unresolved issues. Many thanks for your
help with that! However, the tracker still lists two things that need to be
done:

Issue-29 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/29> is about a
possible new requirement for the BP deliverable. Could the BP team please
have a look?

Action-111 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/111> is about
possibly adding use cases and requirements that were used for the existing
SSN vocabulary. Could the SSN team please have a look and make a decision?

Thanks in advance,
Frans

On 22 June 2016 at 13:12, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:

> 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 Thursday, 14 July 2016 13:31:20 UTC

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