Hi Frans, Alejandro, I have just reviewed the 10 Oct 2016 draft and have these comments: 1. Minor: I suggest “GI” in 2.2 expanded to “geospatial information” (or is it “infrastructure”?) 2. More significant: The list of requirements is presented in alphabetical order. This makes it slightly hard for the non-expert user to find things. I suggest that they are grouped into themes. This would make it easier, for example, for someone interested in observations to become aware of the SSN stuff. I initially suggest, but with not very well thought out group names: CRS: 1,2, 3, 6, 9, 11, 17, 18, 21, 24, 30, 42, 43, 44, 45, 51. Temporal: 7, 10, 12, 28, 32, 41, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 61. Observations: 14, 16, 19, 26, 27, 31, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 40, 46, 47, 48, 57, 62. Webiness: 8, 13, 23, 25, 29, 35, 50, 60. Efficiency: 4, 5, 15, 20, 22, 37, 49, 52, 59. I have no strong views on categorisation, but those five struck me as a good start. Chris From: Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 12:08 PM To: Ed Parsons; Kerry Taylor; Alejandro Llaves Cc: SDW WG Public List Subject: [public-sdw-wg] <none> Hello Alejandro, Ed, Kerry, Making use of my absence in Sapporo, I have just gone through the list of UCR issues<https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/products/1> again. I have grouped the issues in two sets. Those that have status OPEN are still being discussed. I think that means the discussion should be encouraged and should be aimed at making decisions. The issues that have status PENDINGREVIEW are ready to be voted on. I hope this helps in getting all UCR issues resolved soon, which is much needed because the deliverables for which the requirements are described have already started or will start soon. Greetings from warm and sunny Amsterdam, Frans
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2016 18:02:57 UTC