RE: QB4ST comments

Bill,

FWIW, the Oxford English Dictionary has a presumption in favour of ‘Z’. And just don’t mention commas.

Chris

From: Bill Roberts [mailto:bill@swirrl.com]
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 7:31 PM
To: Rob Atkinson; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Subject: QB4ST comments

Hi Rob

I had a read through QB4ST and it all looks very solid.

The only thing that I would suggest at this stage is to add an example that shows the use of some of the new terms in representing some typical data.  All the ontology stuff is clear but quite abstract and difficult for some people (me!) to get my head round.  With Section 5.4 ("Example: Gridded coverage described using QB4ST") looks like you already have that planned - but would definitely be handy to fill that section in.

I've made a pull request fixing a couple of minor typos I spotted (https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/610) and standardising the spelling of 'specialization' - it appeared in different places in the doc with an 's' or a 'z' and I understand we're meant to use US English spelling.  I think that US English generally uses a z in words like this.

Cheers

Bill