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

Re: Use Cases and Requirements Latest Draft

From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 14:50:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFVDz40eL5AXAOV+Pea2ehwSZPJ4ZT8Q76FPp+yM76L+x02+DQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Little, Chris" <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
Cc: Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>, Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@acm.org>
Hello Chris,

My apologies for responding late, I have been ill for three weeks, despite
you medical advise.

I have just changed the document based on your first comment. The second
suggestion is more difficult. I can understand that categorization could
help in a certain way. That is the reason why the requirements have
been grouped
by deliverable
<http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#RequirementsByDeliverable>,
which by the way seems to address the needs of you example someone looking
for only the SSN stuff. I think additional grouping in the chapter
describing the requirements
<http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#Requirements>
will be difficult because probably different types of readers will want to
see different categories. And, depending on which categories will be the
definitive ones, there will be requirements that do not fit uniquely in one
category. So I would like to suggest to keep it as it is, which will also
be beneficial for the publication process that has been set in motion.
Could you live with that?

Regards,
Frans

On 12 October 2016 at 20:02, Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
wrote:

> 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, 26 October 2016 12:52:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 26 October 2016 12:52:15 UTC