Re: QB4ST final issues

Hi Francois and Rob

I have just merged an old PR that was still outstanding: https://github.
com/w3c/sdw/pull/756

It looked fine to me, though possible that it may need a further update?

Also I looked at your re-formatting PR Francois https://github.com/
w3c/sdw/pull/932
That looks good to me and happy for you to merge it

However Francois in your mail
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Jun/0080.html you
raised a question about where we put the definition of the QB4ST ontology,
and made a suggestion of how to solve it that Rob agreed with.

So that still needs to be implemented as far as I can tell.  I am happy to
make that change if you are both still ok with that?

And the doc still lists issue 129 as open.  In
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Jun/0064.html I
suggested we just get rid of that issue as the work it might potentially
refer to did not reach a sufficiently advanced stage in the work of the
group.  Do you both agree with that?


Thanks - nearly there!  If we can tidy these things up then we should be
able to propose to the group that we release the final draft of this.

Cheers

Bill


On 7 July 2017 at 15:16, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org> wrote:

> Rob, Bill,
>
> I note that there is still a pending Pull Request on the QB4ST
> specification (from me):
> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/932
>
> Can it be merged?
>
> Also note the proposal below to add a note to make section 6 "Vocabulary
> Reference" explicit that the normative definition of the QB4ST ontology is
> to be found in the qb4st.ttl file, and that the spec only contains
> excerpts. Could you look into it?
>
> We should be able to issue a final call for consensus to publish QB4ST as
> a final Working Group Note once that is done.
>
> Thanks,
> Francois
>
>
> > From: François Daoust [mailto:fd@w3.org]
> > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 6:26 PM
> >
> >
> > Le 19/06/2017 à 17:39, Rob Atkinson a écrit :
> > > Thanks Francois
> > >
> > > I agree with your suggestion - ideally we would have worked examples of
> > > every defined term too - so I think we should add such a note and also
> > > note that as a "work in progress" not all terms are fully described.
> >
> > +1!
> >
> >
> > > What would be really nice is a way to pull the definitions from the
> .ttl
> > > file into a table in the spec - to avoid inevitable editing
> > > synchronisation issues - is this possible ?
> >
> > I do not know if such a conversion tool exists already (perhaps others
> > know?) but that seems doable. That said, we need to wrap-up the spec
> > within the next few days, so I guess I would stick to the note for now...
> >
> > Francois.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Rob
> > >
> > > On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 at 00:48 François Daoust <fd@w3.org
> > > <mailto:fd@w3.org>> wrote:
> > >
> > >     Hi Rob, Bill,
> > >
> > >     I prepared a pull request to improve Turtle code sections in the
> > >     document, see:
> > >     https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/932
> > >
> > >     That pull request uses a different color scheme for the bits that
> define
> > >     the ontology and the bits that link to examples, in particular.
> > >
> > >     This begs a question though: where is the QB4ST ontology
> normatively
> > >     defined? Using my W3C glasses, I would have expected to find that
> > >     definition in the spec. However, I see the "qb4st.ttl" file
> contains a
> > >     few classes whose definitions do not appear in the spec, such as
> > >     "qb4st:RefAreaMeasure", "qb4st:TemporalComponentSpecification" or
> > >     "qb4st:SpatialDimensionComponentSpecification".
> > >
> > >     I would suggest to make section 6 "Vocabulary Reference" explicit
> that
> > >     the normative definition of the QB4ST ontology is to be found in
> the
> > >     qb4st.ttl file, and that the spec only contains excerpts.
> > >
> > >     Francois.
> > >
> > >
> > >     Le 14/06/2017 à 19:23, Bill Roberts a écrit :
> > >     > Hi Rob
> > >     >
> > >     > I've edited section 6.4 of QB4ST to insert a short note about the
> > >     > intention to add an example here in future - but have left that
> > >     section
> > >     > there, so no numbering changes arise.
> > >     >
> > >     > There are still 2 open issues in the document:
> > >     >
> > >     > ISSUE 129
> > >     > Insert appropriate form of reference to SDW work if available to
> fill
> > >     > this gap
> > >     >
> > >     > If I remember correctly, that was there in case some of the work
> on
> > >     > Geosparql extensions went far enough to define the kinds of base
> > >     spatial
> > >     > concepts you had in mind.
> > >     >
> > >     > Since that hasn't yet got to the point of a formal document we
> could
> > >     > refer to, then I'm guessing this issue should just be removed,
> because
> > >     > there isn't yet a suitable reference.
> > >     >
> > >     > I'm happy to make that change, but do I understand correctly
> what you
> > >     > intended?
> > >     >
> > >     > Thanks
> > >     >
> > >     > Bill
> > >
>
>
>