RE: Discussion thread for review BP introduction

Hello Frans,

Actually I did add this, but not to the Introduction. It’s in the Scope section. My feeling was it fits there better because the UCR document very much explains why our scope is what it is. The introduction is more meant as a general explanation of what our BP is about. Also, the Data on the Web best practices document has the reference to its UCR document in the Scope section.

The wording is currently this:
“In order to delimit the scope and elicit the required features for Spatial Data on the Web Best Practices, the SDW working group compiled a set of use cases [link to UCR] that represent scenarios of how spatial data is commonly published on the Web and how it is used. The set of requirements derived from these use cases were used to guide the development of the best practices.”

I hope this is agreeable.

Linda

Van: Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
Verzonden: dinsdag 8 december 2015 14:19
Aan: Phil Archer; Linda van den Brink; Jeremy Tandy
CC: SDW WG (public-sdw-wg@w3.org)
Onderwerp: Re: Discussion thread for review BP introduction

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<mailto: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  + the Internet Draft expires soon and so the link will be out of date.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<http://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<mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>> wrote:
2015-11-19 13:18 GMT+01:00 Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:%2B%2031%20%280%2933%2046041%2000>

*m*: + 31 (0)6 1355 57 92<tel:%2B%2031%20%280%296%201355%2057%2092>

*e:  *l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl<mailto:l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl> <r.beltman@geonovum.nl<mailto:r.beltman@geonovum.nl>>

*i*:  www.geonovum.nl<http://www.geonovum.nl>



--

*Ed Parsons*
Geospatial Technologist, Google

Google Voice +44 (0)20 7881 4501<tel:%2B44%20%280%2920%207881%204501>
www.edparsons.com<http://www.edparsons.com> @edparsons



--


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/


http://philarcher.org

+44 (0)7887 767755<tel:%2B44%20%280%297887%20767755>
@philarcher1