Re: comments on comparison of CoverageJSON and TimseriesML

Thanks Francois - that sounds great


On 6 July 2017 at 10:11, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi Jon,
>
>
>
> Please do and let me know once that is done. Since there was general
> support and no objection to publishing the CoverageJSON document, I will
> proceed with the publication request of the final WG Note afterwards.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Francois.
>
>
>
> *From**:* Jon Blower [mailto:j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 6, 2017 11:05 AM
> *To:* Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>; Bill Roberts <
> bill@swirrl.com>
> *Cc:* public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: comments on comparison of CoverageJSON and TimseriesML
>
>
>
> Thanks Chris!
>
>
>
> Bill, if it’s not too late I can make the change that Chris suggests, and
> I’ve also noticed another small correction (“at” should be “with” in the
> last sentence). Shall I go ahead?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Chris Little <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
> *Date: *Thursday, 6 July 2017 10:02
> *To: *Jon Blower <sgs02jdb@reading.ac.uk>, Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>
> *Cc: *"public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject: *RE: comments on comparison of CoverageJSON and TimseriesML
>
>
>
> Jon, Bill,
>
>
>
> A little bit late, as I was off line while I was in Canada and only now
> back at work. Jon’s text is fine and accurate.
>
>
>
> Perhaps to convey the richness of the 13 ‘interpolation types’ of
> TimeseriesML, “or average of a quantity” could read “, average or several
> other functions of a quantity”.
>
>
>
> And +1 to publish.
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> *From:* Jon Blower [mailto:j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk
> <j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk>]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 23, 2017 4:27 PM
> *To:* Bill Roberts; Little, Chris
> *Cc:* public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: comments on comparison of CoverageJSON and TimseriesML
>
>
>
> Hi Bill,
>
>
>
> Yes, I have now created a PR for this. It would be useful if Chris could
> double-check it. Here is the new text for his convenience:
>
>
>
> “CoverageJSON can be used to record data that take the form of timeseries,
> for example measurements of flow rate in in a river, or average London
> rainfall over time. [*TimeseriesML
> <#m_-8988952509973012598_bib-TimeseriesML>*] specializes in recording
> such data and provides some features that are not provided in CoverageJSON.
> For example, in TimeseriesML, richer metadata can be added to better
> describe the data values being measured (the range) and their relationship
> to time (the domain). For example, a data value in the range may be defined
> to represent an accumulation, maximum, minimum or average of a quantity
> over time, and the time values in the domain may be defined to mark the
> start, end or middle of the time period in question. In CoverageJSON, this
> level of description is not yet possible.
>
>
>
> Version 1.0 of TimeseriesML (the current version at the time of writing)
> does not permit the association of multiple parameters at each data point,
> whereas this is permitted in CoverageJSON.”
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 21 June 2017 18:21
> *To: *Chris Little <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
> *Cc: *Jon Blower <sgs02jdb@reading.ac.uk>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <
> public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: comments on comparison of CoverageJSON and TimseriesML
>
>
>
> Chris - many thanks for that.  Jon - are you happy to make the
> corresponding small tweaks to the document?
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> On 21 June 2017 at 16:04, Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
> wrote:
>
> Jon,
>
>
>
> “Not yet” is the best answer – the SWG has been re-chartered and started
> work again to do precisely this, but I’ve not seen much progress, but then
> I was not at Delft.
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> *From:* Jon Blower [mailto:j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 21, 2017 3:55 PM
> *To:* Little, Chris; Bill Roberts; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: comments on comparison of CoverageJSON and TimseriesML
>
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
>
>
> That’s very helpful, thanks. So do I understand correctly from your final
> comment that TimeseriesMLv1 does **not** permit the recording of multiple
> parameters at each data point? This may be worth mentioning as a point of
> comparison.
>
>
>
> (What is the current version of TimeseriesML by the way?)
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Jon Blower *| CTO, Institute for Environmental Analytics
>
>
>
> Follow the IEA on Twitter @env_analytics
> <https://twitter.com/env_analytics> and on LinkedIn The Institute for
> Environmental Analytics (IEA)
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-institute-for-environmental-analytics?trk=biz-companies-cymhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/the-institute-for-environmental-analytics?trk=biz-companies-cym>
>
>
>
> Philip Lyle Building, University of Reading, Whiteknights Campus, Reading
> RG6 6BX
>
> *T: *+44 (0)118 378 5213 <+44%20118%20378%205213> *M: *+44 (0)7919 112687
> <+44%207919%20112687>
>
> *E: *j.blower@the-iea.org *W: *www.the-iea.org
>
>
>
> *From: *Chris Little <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 21 June 2017 15:50
> *To: *Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>, Jon Blower <sgs02jdb@reading.ac.uk>,
> "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject: *RE: comments on comparison of CoverageJSON and TimseriesML
>
>
>
> Bill,
>
>
>
> Sorry to take so long to get around to this.
>
>
>
> The paragraph is fine, but I suggest making “accumulation or average” read
> “accumulation, maximum, minimum or average” to give a wider indication of
> the 13 possible ‘interpolation types’.
>
>
>
> I think it a hostage to fortune to mention work in progress for
> TimeseriesML V2 (multiple parameters at each data point/time)
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> *From:* Bill Roberts [mailto:bill@swirrl.com <bill@swirrl.com>]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 16, 2017 8:32 AM
> *To:* Little, Chris; Jon Blower; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* comments on comparison of CoverageJSON and TimseriesML
>
>
>
> Hi Chris
>
>
>
> In the SDW call on Wednesday night, the folks Scott and Armin suggested to
> me that you might be the ideal person to assist Jon and I with one final
> small task on the CoverageJSON document.
>
>
>
> Section 6.3 of the document http://w3c.github.io/sdw/coverage-json/#ogc-
> timeseriesml makes some comparisons between TimeseriesML and CoverageJSON
> but neither Jon nor I feel very confident in our knowledge of
> TimeseriesML.  Would you mind looking at that short section and checking it
> for accuracy?  Also, if you have any suggestions for additional points of
> comparison that we should include, please do go ahead and suggest!
>
>
>
> I hope that wouldn't take you too long and would allow us to wrap up the
> final open issue on the doc.  Is that something you'd have time to do over
> the next few days?
>
>
>
> Many thanks
>
>
>
> Bill
>
>
>