Re: Wanted: feedback on UCR requirements

Thanks Frank, that sounds good to me.  And yes, I take your point that
listing a requirement does not necessarily mean that it will be met, and
sometimes requirements can be conflicting.

best regards

Bill

On 16 August 2016 at 13:00, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:

> Thank you Bill. Nothing earthshaking, I like that. Everything considered
> the only thing that needs to change is link the tiling requirement to the
> Coverage deliverable. I will do that now.
>
> About requirments being at odds: Yes that could be the case. But the UC&R
> are about identifying problems, not about how to solve them. And it should
> be clear to everyone that listing a requirement does not mean it will be
> met.
>
> Regards,
> Frans
>
> On 15 August 2016 at 16:58, Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Frank
>>
>> The main things were:
>>
>> - 5.14 seems to have some overlap with 5.15, and we had some discussions
>> (though no firm conclusion) on whether we need 5.14.  It is more specific
>> to coverages than 5.15 so perhaps worth keeping.
>> - 5.44 (streamable data) - it's not always feasible or sensible to stream
>> data.  In our discussions of coverage data, we concluded it may be partly
>> at odds with 5.3 (compressible data).
>>
>> Other than that, I think you have already dealt with other things we
>> discussed under the heading of coverage.
>>
>> In the section 6.4 cross-references, there are some other requirements
>> which we think are probably relevant to coverages, but I think you have
>> picked up the ones that are most coverage-specific, except perhaps Support
>> for Tiling, which we reckon is important for coverages.  If you could add
>> that to 6.4, that would be good.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 15 August 2016 at 14:55, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Bill,
>>>
>>> I am about to finalise the next version of the UC&R document. Has the
>>> coverage subgroup found anything that could or should be changed in that
>>> document? Missing requirements? Missing use cases? Unclear requirements?
>>> Requirements that should or should not be linked to the coverage
>>> deliverable? Anything else?
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Frans
>>>
>>> On 6 July 2016 at 15:10, Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Frans
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for my lack of response so far.  I am about to go back through
>>>> the UCR requirements with respect to the work of the coverage subgroup, so
>>>> I can give you some detailed feedback within the next week or so.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>> On 6 July 2016 at 14:00, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>