Re: QB4ST final issues

Hi Francois - I've made the minor changes to QB4ST we discussed a couple of
weeks ago.  For linking to the Turtle file holding the full definition of
the ontology, I've linked to the github file -
https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/qb4st/ontology/qb4st.ttl

Is that appropriate? Or should that file be hosted elsewhere in w3.org web
space?

If you could confirm on that question please then i'll email the group with
a request for comments/consensus.

Many thanks

Bill

On 17 August 2017 at 18:13, Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com> wrote:

> Thanks, will do
>
> On 16 August 2017 at 10:51, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Bill,
>>
>>
>>
>> I went ahead and merged the PR your reviewed. I let you implement the
>> final cleanup updates, and send a call for consensus to publish the
>> document as final Working Group Note once that is done.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Francois.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From**:* Rob Atkinson [mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 15, 2017 10:56 PM
>> *To:* Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>
>> *Cc:* SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>; Francois Daoust <
>> fd@w3.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: QB4ST final issues
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks Bill and Francois
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with these final cleanups and happy for you to implement them.
>>
>>
>>
>> FYI Am meeting today with Geoscience Australia and will discuss future
>> implementation plans and further trajectory through OGC and W3C processes.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 16 Aug 2017 12:44 AM, "Bill Roberts" <bill@swirrl.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Francois and Rob
>>
>>
>>
>> I have just merged an old PR that was still outstanding:
>> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/756
>>
>>
>>
>> It looked fine to me, though possible that it may need a further update?
>>
>>
>>
>> Also I looked at your re-formatting PR Francois https://github.com/w3
>> c/sdw/pull/932
>>
>> That looks good to me and happy for you to merge it
>>
>>
>>
>> However Francois in your mail https://lists.w3.org/Arch
>> ives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Jun/0080.html you raised a question about
>> where we put the definition of the QB4ST ontology, and made a suggestion of
>> how to solve it that Rob agreed with.
>>
>>
>>
>> So that still needs to be implemented as far as I can tell.  I am happy
>> to make that change if you are both still ok with that?
>>
>>
>>
>> And the doc still lists issue 129 as open.  In
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Jun/0064.html I
>> suggested we just get rid of that issue as the work it might potentially
>> refer to did not reach a sufficiently advanced stage in the work of the
>> group.  Do you both agree with that?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks - nearly there!  If we can tidy these things up then we should be
>> able to propose to the group that we release the final draft of this.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7 July 2017 at 15:16, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>> Rob, Bill,
>>
>> I note that there is still a pending Pull Request on the QB4ST
>> specification (from me):
>> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/932
>>
>> Can it be merged?
>>
>> Also note the proposal below to add a note 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. Could you look into it?
>>
>> We should be able to issue a final call for consensus to publish QB4ST as
>> a final Working Group Note once that is done.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Francois
>>
>>
>> > From: François Daoust [mailto:fd@w3.org]
>> > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 6:26 PM
>> >
>> >
>> > 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
>> > >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>