- From: Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 17:48:26 +0100
- To: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Cc: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>, public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Hi Francois Sorry have been tied up on other stuff this week but will pick this up again next week and help sort out the remaining details. Thanks for your help Cheers Bill > On 7 Jul 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 >>> > >
Received on Friday, 7 July 2017 16:49:00 UTC