Re: no BP sub-group call this week - busy prepping WD release

All - I've now merged in all the changes that I had to make ahead of the WD
release.

That leaves:

@phila: bibliography

@bill: glossary

@payam: CRS intro material and associated BP

We're still on target to "stabilise" the draft for next Wednesday (5-Oct)

Thanks all.

Jeremy

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 at 10:26 Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> wrote:

> See PR 387 [1] ... not quite your words but hopefully close enough. Jeremy
>
> [1]: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/387
>
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 at 10:23 Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi- I've just applied the proposed change ... and am merging a PR now.
>> Thanks for trying to clarify the text ... this particular discussion on
>> terminology seems like an endless loop and I'm very happy if your proposal
>> helps us put that to bed!
>>
>> Jeremy
>>
>> BTW: INSPIRE Spatial Object is _definitely_ an information resource :-)
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 at 10:21 Linda van den Brink <
>> l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>
>>> Thank you for following up on this! Your rephrasing sounds good to me.
>>> Do you want to include the change yourself and do a pull request? Or do you
>>> want me to do it?
>>>
>>> Linda
>>>
>>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>>> Van: Andrea Perego [mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu]
>>> Verzonden: donderdag 29 september 2016 09:49
>>> Aan: Jeremy Tandy; Linda van den Brink
>>> CC: SDW WG Public List
>>> Onderwerp: Re: no BP sub-group call this week - busy prepping WD release
>>>
>>> Jeremy, Linda,
>>>
>>> About the "terminology" issue, I checked mainly the notions of "spatial
>>> thing" / "feature" in Section 4:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/index.html#spatial-things-features-and-geometry
>>>
>>> That section says we are using "spatial thing" as equivalent to
>>> "feature". However, this statement seems to me in conflict with the
>>> definitions we use in the same section. I'm quoting below the relevant
>>> passages:
>>>
>>> [[
>>> In spatial data standards from the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) and
>>> the the 19100 series of ISO geographic information standards from ISO/TC
>>> 211 the primary entity is the feature. [ISO-19101] defines a feature as
>>> an: “abstraction of real world phenomena”.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> However, the term “feature” is also commonly used to mean a capability
>>> of a system, application or component. To avoid confusion, we adopt the
>>> term “spatial thing” throughout the remainder of this best practice
>>> document. “Spatial thing” is defined in [W3C-BASIC-GEO] as “Anything
>>> with spatial extent, i.e. size, shape, or position. e.g. people, places,
>>> bowling balls, as well as abstract areas like cubes”.
>>>
>>> The term “spatial thing” is considered equivalent to “feature” in the
>>> first sense discussed above. Furthermore, we treat it as equivalent to
>>> other commonly used definitions; e.g. Feature from [NeoGeo], described
>>> as “A geographical feature, capable of holding spatial relations”.
>>> ]]
>>>
>>> As far as I can see, the definition of "spatial thing" from Basic Geo is
>>> so general to include any "spatial resource" - i.e., both real-world
>>> things / phaenomena and information resources. On the other hand, the
>>> ISO definition of "feature" seems to denote an information resource
>>> (abstracting a real-world thing / phaenomenon).
>>>
>>> I don't know if I got it right, but if this is the case, I include below
>>> a possible re-phrasing of the last two paragraphs above:
>>>
>>> [[
>>> However, the term “feature” is also commonly used to mean a capability
>>> of a system, application or component. Also, in some domains and/or
>>> applications there is no distinction between "features" and the
>>> corresponding real-world phenonema.
>>>
>>> To avoid confusion, we adopt the term “spatial thing” throughout the
>>> remainder of this best practice document. “Spatial thing” is defined in
>>> [W3C-BASIC-GEO] as “Anything with spatial extent, i.e. size, shape, or
>>> position. e.g. people, places, bowling balls, as well as abstract areas
>>> like cubes”.
>>>
>>> As such, the term “spatial thing” includes, semantically, the notion of
>>> “feature” in the first sense discussed above, as well as "real-world
>>> phenomena". Furthermore, we treat it as inclusive of other commonly used
>>> definitions; e.g. Feature from [NeoGeo], described as “A geographical
>>> feature, capable of holding spatial relations”.
>>> ]]
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Andrea
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27/09/2016 17:11, Jeremy Tandy wrote:
>>> > Thanks!
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 at 16:10 Andrea Perego
>>> > <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu <mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu
>>> >>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >     Hi, Jeremy.
>>> >
>>> >     I'll do my best to carry out the review within tomorrow.
>>> >
>>> >     Cheers,
>>> >
>>> >     Andrea
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >     On 27/09/2016 11:57, Jeremy Tandy wrote:
>>> >     > Hi- at the f2f meeting at TPAC last week, we made loads of
>>> >     progress ...
>>> >     > not least was agreeing that the BP doc has changed so much that
>>> we
>>> >     > should release it _now_ (more or less) even though we know
>>> there's
>>> >     still
>>> >     > so much to do to get it _finished_.
>>> >     >
>>> >     > Here are my notes from the discussion about WD release:
>>> >     >
>>> >     > ```
>>> >     >
>>> >     > /@phila: urges publication with only minimal change … there’s
>>> been a
>>> >     > huge amount of work done and we should share this for wider
>>> review/
>>> >     >
>>> >     > /What to do:/
>>> >     >
>>> >     >   * /terminology … making sure that we use spatial thing
>>> >     consistently …
>>> >     >     [LvdB … fixed already][Andrea to check again?]/
>>> >     >
>>> >     >   * /glossary … make sure we have glossary terms for everything
>>> that
>>> >     >     experts might say - and make sure that the glossary
>>> >     definitions are
>>> >     >     appropriate [@bill]/
>>> >     >
>>> >     >   * /bibliography [@phila] … and figure out if we should use a
>>> simple
>>> >     >     hyperlink in place of a bib-ref/
>>> >     >
>>> >     >   * /close issues that we have actually resolved [lvdb]/
>>> >     >
>>> >     >   * /remove the yellow highlight [@jtandy]/
>>> >     >
>>> >     >   * /status of this document [@jtandy]/
>>> >     >
>>> >     >   * /change since last release (“substantial re-write”) …
>>> therefore
>>> >     >     don’t need a Diff [@jtandy]/
>>> >     >
>>> >     >   * /update to REQ vs BP … could be automated [@newton (from DWBP
>>> >     WG)]/
>>> >     >
>>> >     > /…/
>>> >     >
>>> >     > /stable version on 5-Oct (wed call)/
>>> >     >
>>> >     > /vote to release 12-Oct /
>>> >     >
>>> >     > ```
>>> >     >
>>> >     > So we have a bunch of editorial actions to do to make a stable
>>> release
>>> >     > for 5-Oct (next week) and then (hopefully) a vote to release the
>>> >     week after.
>>> >     >
>>> >     >
>>> >     > If you've got actions (me, linda, bill, phila, andrea) then
>>> please
>>> >     crack
>>> >     > on with them. Please ask if you have questions ...
>>> >     >
>>> >     >
>>> >     > We're also expecting some additional content from Payam
>>> regarding CRS.
>>> >     >
>>> >     > Best Regards, Jeremy
>>> >     >
>>> >     >
>>> >     > (from Devon, UK - where the weather isn't nearly so nice as in
>>> >     Lisbon!)
>>> >     >
>>> >
>>> >     --
>>> >     Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
>>> >     Scientific / Technical Project Officer
>>> >     European Commission DG JRC
>>> >     Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
>>> >     Unit B6 - Digital Economy
>>> >     Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
>>> >     21027 Ispra VA, Italy
>>> >
>>> >     https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
>>> >
>>> >     ----
>>> >     The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
>>> >     not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
>>> >     position of the European Commission.
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
>>> Scientific / Technical Project Officer
>>> European Commission DG JRC
>>> Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
>>> Unit B6 - Digital Economy
>>> Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
>>> 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
>>>
>>> https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
>>>
>>> ----
>>> The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
>>> not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
>>> position of the European Commission.
>>>
>>

Received on Thursday, 29 September 2016 09:31:02 UTC