W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > August 2017

RE: QB4ST final issues

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:51:54 +0200
To: "'Rob Atkinson'" <rob@metalinkage.com.au>, "'Bill Roberts'" <bill@swirrl.com>
Cc: "'SDW WG Public List'" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <013e01d31675$4b118360$e1348a20$@w3.org>
Hi Bill,
 
I went ahead and merged the PR your reviewed. I let you implement the final cleanup updates, and send a call for consensus to publish the document as final Working Group Note once that is done.
 
Thanks,
Francois.
 
From: Rob Atkinson [mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 10:56 PM
To: Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>
Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>; Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Subject: Re: QB4ST final issues
 
Thanks Bill and Francois
 
I agree with these final cleanups and happy for you to implement them. 
 
FYI Am meeting today with Geoscience Australia and will discuss future implementation plans and further trajectory through OGC and W3C processes.
 
Rob
 
 
 
On 16 Aug 2017 12:44 AM, "Bill Roberts" <bill@swirrl.com <mailto:bill@swirrl.com> > wrote:
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 <mailto: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 <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> 
> > <mailto: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
> >


 
 
Received on Wednesday, 16 August 2017 09:52:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 16 August 2017 09:52:01 UTC