- From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
- Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 14:19:12 +0100
- To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
- Cc: "SDW WG (public-sdw-wg@w3.org)" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFVDz42RX2=+qvOEMuXaH5dhKGPzKNNaurO+b3QcU4M90w4uEA@mail.gmail.com>
Hello Jeremy, Linda, A link to the UCR document still seems to be missing. Don't you think our method of exracting requirements for best practices from use cases should be explained, and a link to the identified requirements for the BP deliverable should be included in the introduction? Or somewhere else at the start of the document? Regards, Frans 2015-12-02 17:45 GMT+01:00 Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>: > I've made some minor amendments to the intro section and offered a PR as a > result. > > Things I've done: > > - I know this is weird but house style dictates that Web always has a > capital letter and that what everyone else writes as website we should > write as Web site (one for the pub one day). > > - Trivial native-speaker tweaks without, I hope, affecting the style which > is entirely up to the editors. > > - Deleted a few extraneous entries in BP config as they were either not > referred to in the text or they are already in specref. See > http://www.specref.org/ for what's automatically included in the biblio. > > - Added a link to the community spec for GeoJSON. My thinking being: > + The context of the reference makes it clear that it's a community spec; > + the Internet Draft expires soon and so the link will be out of date. > Ideally, it will get to a stable ietf.org URI that we can point to. > + The community site links to the draft. > + AS this is a non-normative BP doc we can more or less do what we jolly > well like. > > I've also addressed Issue-56 in the GH issue tracker ( > https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/56) > > HTH > > Phil. > > > > > On 20/11/2015 17:13, Jeremy Tandy wrote: > >> Hi Linda- I think that the intro looks good. I particularly like the style >> of your writing ... it's engaging and informal rather than dry (like a lot >> of other standards documents). >> >> The points from Frans regarding definitions are valid. We might want to >> include definitions for the roles of "commercial operators", "geospatial >> experts", "public sector" and "web developers" in our glossary. I can see >> us re-using those labels elsewhere in the doc. >> >> When we reference GeoJSON we need to make a citation - so it appears in >> the >> references section [1]. We'll need to add that to the local biblio for the >> doc. >> >> ( @phila: should we use the draft IETF reference [2], or the community >> specification [3] ) >> >> I think that once you have addressed @eparson's comments about >> accessibility and discoverability and those noted by Frans and myself the >> intro is good enough for the FPWD; it sets the tone. As we add more >> content >> into the document we can review this section to make sure it continues to >> reflect the scope of the document as it evolves. >> >> Jeremy >> >> [1]: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#references >> [2]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geojson-00 >> [3]: http://geojson.org >> >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 at 12:28 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote: >> >> 2015-11-19 13:18 GMT+01:00 Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>: >>> >>> Hi- >>>> >>>> regarding Frans' point #3 >>>> >>>> - I think it would help to have explanations for things like WFS, >>>> SDI, WMS.. .Perhaps add hyperlinks to wikipedia pages explaining those >>>> concepts? >>>> >>>> Would suggest that we include definitions pertinent to the best practice >>>> within the BP doc itself (e.g. a glossary in an appendix); we can then >>>> use >>>> some respec magic to refer to these definitions where ever we use those >>>> terms. >>>> >>>> >>> That looks like a good idea. Keeping definitions self-contained will >>> benefit durability of the document. >>> >>> >>> Jeremy >>>> >>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 at 11:03 Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks Linda, That seems a great start.. >>>>> >>>>> Only one comment, I think we need to make the point that the key >>>>> problems we are try to solve is discoverability and accessibility, >>>>> it's not >>>>> that there is a lack of geospatial data, but the data that has been >>>>> published if difficult to find and often problematic to access for >>>>> non-specialist users. How overarching goal therefore is to bring >>>>> publishing geospatial data into the web mainstream as a mechanism for >>>>> solving these twin problems. >>>>> >>>>> Ed >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 at 10:15 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello Linda, >>>>>> >>>>>> A few remarks: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. About "Spatial data, or data related to a specific location, is >>>>>> what this Best Practice is all about": Shouldn't it be 'Best >>>>>> Practice >>>>>> document' in stead of 'Best Practice'? And 'data related to a >>>>>> specific >>>>>> location' seems to exclude coverage data. Shouldn't the document >>>>>> provide >>>>>> best practices for coverage data too? >>>>>> 2. Perhaps the introduction is not the right place, but I think >>>>>> there should be a reference to the UCR document somewhere, and the >>>>>> requirements for best practices described there; >>>>>> 3. I think it would help to have explanations for things like WFS, >>>>>> SDI, WMS.. .Perhaps add hyperlinks to wikipedia pages explaining >>>>>> those concepts? >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Frans >>>>>> >>>>>> 2015-11-19 8:27 GMT+01:00 Linda van den Brink < >>>>>> l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As promised yesterday in the telecon – here’s a thread for review >>>>>>> comments on the Introduction section I wrote in the BP. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please review this section: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#intro >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... and then please post your comments as a reply to this email. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It’s a first draft, and I aimed to keep it short and readable. The >>>>>>> language is intentionally pretty informal. Any comments are welcome >>>>>>> at this >>>>>>> stage! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Linda >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *______________________________________* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Geonovum* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Linda van den Brink* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Adviseur Geo-standaarden* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *a*: Barchman Wuytierslaan 10, 3818 LH Amersfoort >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *p*: Postbus 508, 3800 AM Amersfoort >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *t*: + 31 (0)33 46041 00 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *m*: + 31 (0)6 1355 57 92 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *e: *l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl <r.beltman@geonovum.nl> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *i*: www.geonovum.nl >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Ed Parsons* >>>>> Geospatial Technologist, Google >>>>> >>>>> Google Voice +44 (0)20 7881 4501 >>>>> www.edparsons.com @edparsons >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> > -- > > > Phil Archer > W3C Data Activity Lead > http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ > > http://philarcher.org > +44 (0)7887 767755 > @philarcher1 > >
Received on Tuesday, 8 December 2015 13:19:44 UTC