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

RE: comments on comparison of CoverageJSON and TimseriesML

From: Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 14:50:09 +0000
To: Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>, Jon Blower <j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3DAD8A5A545D7644A066C4F2E82072883E3005CA@EXXCMPD1DAG4.cmpd1.metoffice.gov.uk>

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)


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

Received on Wednesday, 21 June 2017 14:50:44 UTC

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