Re: Wanted: feedback on UCR requirements

Hello Simon,

Chris's summary is in the issue notes, here
<https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/26>.

Regards,
Frans

2016-07-08 5:39 GMT+02:00 <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>:

> Ø  I have written a substantial, and hopefully, accurate summary of Issue
> 26, and closed it.
>
>
>
> Where?
>
>
>
> *From:* Little, Chris [mailto:chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk]
> *Sent:* Friday, 8 July 2016 1:15 AM
> *To:* Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>; Jeremy Tandy <
> jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>; Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>;
> Payam Barnaghi <payam.barnaghi@gmail.com>; Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton)
> <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>; Armin
> Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>; danh.lephuoc@deri.org; Bill Roberts <
> bill@swirrl.com>; Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
> *Cc:* SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject:* RE: Wanted: feedback on UCR requirements
>
>
>
> Hi Frans,
>
>
>
> I have written a substantial, and hopefully, accurate summary of Issue 26,
> and closed it.
>
>
>
> I think all the concerns raised were addressed, if not all adopted.
>
>
>
> There are couple of outstanding documentation tasks:
>
> Official definitions of a Temporal Reference System, etc;
>
> Examples for Issue-15 : using OWL-Time and other predicates to refer to
> and between past, present and future resources
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> *From:* Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
> <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 06, 2016 2:01 PM
> *To:* Jeremy Tandy; Linda van den Brink; Payam Barnaghi; Simon Cox;
> Little, Chris; Krzysztof Janowicz; Armin Haller; danh.lephuoc@deri.org;
> Bill Roberts; Kerry Taylor
> *Cc:* SDW WG Public List
> *Subject:* Re: Wanted: feedback on UCR requirements
>
>
>
> Dear editors,
>
>
>
> I haven't had much response to my question so far. So as an aid, here is a
> list of the open issues marked in the current UCR draft:
>
>
> <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/20>
>
> ISSUE-20 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/20> (SSN)
>
> ISSUE-23 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/23> (Best
> Practices)
>
> ISSUE-24 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/24> (SSN)
>
> ISSUE-26 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/26> (Time)
>
> ISSUE-28 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/28> (Best
> Practices)
>
>
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if we can resolve these issues before the next and
> final PWD of the UCR document this month?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Frans
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2016-06-22 13:12 GMT+02:00 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>:
>
> Dear editors of the BP/Time/SSN/Coverage deliverable,
>
>
>
> In preparation of a next public working draft of the UCR document I would
> like to ask you for feedback on the requirements for your deliverable as
> specified in the UCR document. Section 6
> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#RequirementsByDeliverable>
> list requirements grouped by deliverable. By now you will have stared long
> & hard at those requirements, and perhaps you concluded that some or not
> clear yet, or that something else is wrong. Perhaps requirements or even
> important use cases are missing?
>
>
>
> While we are working on a new batch of publications before TPAC, it would
> be nice if the requirements in the UCR document are (among) the ones you
> are actually working with. I think the public we are writing for deserves
> that coherence. I presume your deliverables will link back to the UCR
> document and explain how requirements are met or why requirements are not
> met. So if you think any changes are required in the UCR document resulting
> from your work on your deliverable, please inform me.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Frans
>
>
>