RE: Data Cube issues

Dear Dave, all

Thanks for your effort in consolidating the data cube issues [4] and
mentioning them in the current spec.

I do not want to make the process of raising new issues more difficult, but
I am wondering whether solving and discussing issues would be easier if they
would be based on use cases and requirements mentioned in our use case
document [5]:

* ISSUE-29: Criteria for well-formedness: This issue is required by all use
cases and specifically mentioned at [1] 
* ISSUE-30: Declaring relations between cubes is mentioning a use case which
is also described in the use case document at [2]
* ISSUE-31: Supporting aggregation for other than SKOS hierarchies is not
covered by any use case. Does that mean we should add a use case, e.g.,
dealing with geographic information?
* ISSUE-32: Relationship to ISO19156 - Observations & Measurements? is
covered by use case [3]
* ISSUE-33: Collections of observations and well-formedness of slices
mentions use cases (bathing water quality use case, air quality use case),
which are however not included in the use case document.
* ISSUE-34: Clarify or drop qb:subslice ? Here, no relation to any use case
is made.

Best,

Benedikt


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Reynolds [mailto:dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 6:10 PM
> To: Government Linked Data Working Group
> Subject: Data Cube issues
> 
> I've generated a consolidated list of issues for the Data Cube vocabulary
and,
> as you will have seen :), registered them on the tracker.
> 
> These derive from mail list discussions and usage experience over the last
> year or so, including discussions with Richard prior to joining the
working
> group.
> 
> Note:
> 
> (1) Just because there is an issue on the tracker does NOT mean we will
> tackle it during this working group. We may well decide some of these are
> out of scope or it is premature to address them and so put them in
> POSTPONED. However, there is still value in recording them.
> 
> (2) The list is obviously not closed, there may well be other issues that
> vocabulary users have identified that haven't yet been recorded.
> 
> (3) If any of the folks on the Data Cube subgroup, most especially
Richard,
> would like to clarify any of the issues I've captured then feel free to
improve
> the text in the tracker or raise it in email and I'll attempt improvement.
> 
> Dave
> 
> [You may see a duplicate of this message sent from the wrong email
account,
> if so - apologies]
>

Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 17:42:48 UTC