- From: François Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:48:22 +0200
- To: Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
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 Monday, 19 June 2017 14:48:36 UTC