Re: UCR issue-20 and issue-24

Hello Kerry,

Thank you for the clarification. I have just removed the requirement and
closed the issue.

Regards,
Frans

On 13 July 2016 at 14:12, Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au> wrote:

> Frans – you are right neither the minutes nor my recording of an action
> did justice to our discussion… The discussion  covered some specific
> ontology concepts (e.g. UoM) that are commonly wanted to be used with SSN.
>
>
>
> But  we agreed with your proposal that
>
> t seems questionable if this requirement is in scope. The SSN vocabulary
> complies with Semantic Web or Linked Data standards, so naturally it is
> possible to use other vocabularies?
>
>
>
> For that reason the meeting supported removing the requirement and closing
> the issue.
>
>
>
> Kerry
>
> *From:* Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 July 2016 9:57 PM
> *To:* Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
> *Cc:* public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: UCR issue-20 and issue-24
>
>
>
> Hello Kerry,
>
>
>
> About issue-20 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/20>: So
> there is agreement within the SSN team that the requirement
> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#ReferenceExternalVocabularies>
> is both clear (to the team and to the general public) and in scope? If I
> close issue-20, the requirement will stay as it is. To me it is not
> entirely clear from the minutes that this is the wish of the SSN team.
>
>
>
> I have closed action-186 and issue-24 by updating the UCR document. The
> minutes show that you took time for careful wording of the requirement,
> thank you for that.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Frans
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 13 July 2016 at 00:17, Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> The ssn meeting discussed these issues this morning. We resolved to invite
> the UCR editors to
>
> (a)    Close issue-20 (see action-184 on Frans)
>
> (b)   Fix issue-24  by replacing requirement by  "show how the ssn
> ontology can be applied in the context of lightweight IoT needs". See
> action-186 on Frans.
>
> For the latter there was some suggestion that that new requirement then
> needs to be further refined to more specific requirements, but the meeting
> felt that this was sufficient as phrased here.
>
>
>
> Frans, please take this phrasing of the requirement as the intention of
> the meeting not necessarily quite the right wording which you may prefer to
> modify.
>
>
>
> See minutes: https://www.w3.org/2016/07/12-sdwssn-minutes
>
>
>
> Kerry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>