Re: QB4ST final issues

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.

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 ?


Rob

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 at 00:48 François Daoust <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
>
>