RE: comments on comparison of CoverageJSON and TimseriesML

On Thursday, July 06, 2017 6:06 PM, Jon Blower [mailto:j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk] wrote:

> OK, I fixed the https issue and I also changed the edDraftURI in config.js to use https.
> Now there are no respec warnings!
> 
> (However, viewers may have to force-reload to see the changes to avoid browser
> caching issues [1].)
> 
> Hopefully this is now finished!

Works fine for me, thanks Jon!

Best,

Lars

> 
> [1] https://xkcd.com/1854/


Nice! Let's start all over again.

> 
> From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
> Organization: W3C
> Date: Thursday, 6 July 2017 16:44
> To: Jon Blower <sgs02jdb@reading.ac.uk>, Chris Little
> <chris.little@metoffice.gov.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
> 
> Thanks, Jon.
> 
> Changing the URL of the script as suggested would indeed solve the mixed content
> security issues!
> 
> I will prepare things so that the document gets published as a final Working Group Note
> on Tuesday next week (publications only happen on Tuesdays and Thursdays).
> 
> Francois.
> 
> 
> From: Jon Blower [mailto:j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 5:28 PM
> To: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>; '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
> 
> Hi Francois,
> 
> OK, I’ve done this. Since it was such a small change I hope you don’t mind that I
> committed directly to the gh-pages branch (I didn’t create a PR).
> 
> Lars helpfully pointed out that ReSpec isn’t being picked up so the formatting is all
> wrong. He sent the following suggestion:
> 
> “I _think_ that is because the html file is served over https but in the file respec is
> referenced with an http URI (not an https URI) which causes both Firefox and Chrome
> to raise security concerns (insecure content) and simply refuse to load the script.
> Changing line six in https://w3c.github.io/sdw/coverage-json/ to
> 
> [[
> <script  class="remove"  src="https://www.w3.org/Tools/respec/respec-w3c-

> common"></script>
> ]]
> “
> 
> I didn’t change this myself because I didn’t want to mess with the “plumbing” but am
> happy to try changing this if it will do the trick.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Jon
> 
> From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
> Organization: W3C
> Date: Thursday, 6 July 2017 10:11
> To: Jon Blower <sgs02jdb@reading.ac.uk>, Chris Little
> <chris.little@metoffice.gov.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
> 
> 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]
> 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] 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  and on LinkedIn The Institute for
> Environmental Analytics (IEA)
> 
> Philip Lyle Building, University of Reading, Whiteknights Campus, Reading RG6 6BX
> T: +44 (0)118 378 5213 M: +44 (0)7919 112687
> 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]
> 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
>

Received on Thursday, 6 July 2017 17:42:03 UTC