RE: Data Cube issues

[sorry for repeated posting but links got lost]

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

[1]
<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/data-cube-ucr/index.html#complia
nce-levels-or-criteria-for-well-formedness>
[2]
<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/data-cube-ucr/index.html#declari
ng-relations-between-cubes>
[3]
<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/data-cube-ucr/index.html#publish
ing-sensor-data-as-statistics--uc-4>
[4] <http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/products/3>
[5] <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/data-cube-ucr/index.html>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benedikt Kämpgen [mailto:kaempgen@fzi.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 6:42 PM
> To: 'Dave Reynolds'; Government Linked Data Working Group
> Subject: 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 17:52:31 UTC