Hi all,
there are two issues that I want to highlight.
1. There was a main concern expressed by Michael Diepenbroek. He thinks we won‘t be able to develop an interoperability framework without fundings.
Well I must admit that this term is not well defined and could be interpreted differently. What is meant here is a conceptual framework, not a technical implementation. Also Interoperability Framework is a term used in the KOINE proposal, which might be resubmitted and we don’t want to use this outside that consortium. So I would suggest to use instead: conceptual framework for interoperable observable property terminology. I hope you can agree. If you have strong arguments against this term please write back to me with a better suggestion to be used in the case statement preferrably before midnight (CEST) this eveining, but at latest by tomorrow 10:00.
2. I am revising the work plan and templates for collecting user stories and semantic representations till Thursday 24 Oct, please check this document, if you want to contribute and review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qRU891S9-nXMzJiPWFsucIwNDDIq6oAG35PF...
Thanks!!
Best regards,
Barbara
Gesendet von Mail für Windows 10
- Log in to post comments
- 783 reads
Author: Javad Chamanara
Date: 20 Oct, 2019
It is correct that implementation would be hard without funding but
changing the title to contain the word conceptual is indeed a downgrade
that directly tells the reader that the outcome is nothing especial nor
usable. Also, even if the project gets funding or implements the concepts
the title would still conceptual.
My suggestion is that the title should formulate the long-term aim. The
content of the case statement can clarify the strategy that can be multiple
stages like conceptual design, implementation, etc.
Have a nice time in Helsinky,
Javad
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019, 08:55 mabablue via InteroperAble Descriptions of
Observable Property Terminology WG (I-ADOPT WG) <***@***.***-groups.org>
wrote: