W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > June 2017

Re: QB4ST final issues

From: François Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 18:26:12 +0200
To: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>, Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <890f771d-c011-f5b9-f4c1-3a266bca1b04@w3.org>

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 Monday, 19 June 2017 16:26:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:33 UTC