Re: ssn :complaint

Dear Kerry, all,

> I am surprised because, although I missed two  ssn meetings, *a vote 
> to include it was never on the agenda,* for either  meeting and indeed 
> I had expressed my objection previously when it was discussed in meetings

This is not correct. It has been on the agenda for the 7th of March [1] 
and again on the 14th of March [2].


[1] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:SSN-Telecon20170307
[2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:SSN-Telecon20170314

> I am  particularly  concerned sampling is both very big, and very new, 
> and buggy. Furthermore, in our rush to complete we have many more 
> critical things to fix then this. 

It is not very new, to the contrary it has been proposed months ago. It 
is not very big but just 2-3 classes (Sampler, Sampling, and their 
relationships), and if it is buggy I would love if you could provide us 
with details so that we can fix it.

> surprised to see sampling, and to see that it has lots of problems. I 
> started to note them, for correction, but there are so many I am 
> certain that they will be ignored. 

Kerry, given your strong wording here, will this end up like your claims 
about the concept of 'platform' (and many others) being totally broken 
(which it wasn't)? Please, let us be constructive and respectful in our 
criticism. If you see issues, just voice them during our meetings and we 
can discuss them and work them out.

Krzysztof



On 04/05/2017 12:35 AM, Kerry Taylor wrote:
>
> Dear SDW,
>
> I had a look at the sosa.ttl in github  today  with a vire to a final 
> review and am concerned about the state of much of it, but most 
> particularly surprised to see sampling, and to see that it has lots of 
> problems. I started to note them, for correction, but there are so 
> many I am certain that they will be ignored. Has anyone actually 
> looked at  what is there, other than me? AFAICT it does not even match 
> the wiki outline.  It also has complex consequences on ssn that have 
> not even been begun to be considered.
>
> I am surprised because, although I missed two  ssn meetings, *a vote 
> to include it was never on the agenda,* for either  meeting and indeed 
> I had expressed my objection previously when it was discussed in 
> meetings. It is a very substantial increase in scope (although we do 
> have  maybe one use case, I think), but many other unserved use cases 
> too at this time).  Normally, we do not make decisions on matters when 
> people who had showed interest are not able to be present. Furthermore 
> the *minutes  records a -1* that was not mine, and a couple of zeros. 
>  And it very clearly shows how rushed the decision was.
>
> I am  particularly  concerned sampling is both very big, and very new, 
> and buggy. Furthermore, in our rush to complete we have many more 
> critical things to fix then this.
>
> It should be removed.
>
> -Kerry
>


-- 
Krzysztof Janowicz

Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060

Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu
Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net