Re: suggested edits to bp doc

Hi-

Comments applied to document (see commit [1]) and merged (see PR [2]).
Again, where you've asked open ended questions, I have raised new ISSUES in
GitHub ... so in response to your points we now have 6 new issues: 190
<https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/190>, 191
<https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/191>, 193
<https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/193>, 194
<https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/194>, 195
<https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/195> and 196
<https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/196>.

[1]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Jan/0007.html
[2]: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/197

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 at 13:02 Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@acm.org> wrote:

> BP Eds,
> Thanks Jeremy -- quick work!
> Here's a few more suggestions from BP 2 to BP11 inclusive
>
> Several Bps: I like those worded in an imperative style  like "xx should
> be yyy" , over those worded in the "how to" style. I think the latter kind
> should be rewritten to the former kind.
> e.g. "How to describe relative positions" could be " Relative positions
> should be expressed in a machine-interpretable or human readable manner"
>
> BP 2
> "If these resources would not use" to "If these resources did not use"
>
> BP 3
>
> "; and express these correspondances" s/;/,   s/dan/den
>
> " , and are not addressing"  change to ". We do not address"
>
> "are in GIS systems, you can use the systems spatial"  change to "are
> managed in a GIS, you can use the GIS spatial"
>
> BP 4
>
> "be reluctant about assigning"  to "be reluctant to assign"
>
> I wonder whether some reference to the paradox of the Ship of Theseus
> would be useful here -- (e.g.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus)
> just to highlight the fact that there is no really rigorous  notion of
> persistent identity.
>
> "versionless URL" -- or URI? We don't want an argument about this -- but
> perhaps a statement  upfront (in BP1?) to use "URI" throughout noting that
> such
> URIs are meant to refer to URLs according to BP1?
>
> BP5
>
> clearly an ongoing topic. I don't like "subset" being used for this
> purpose -- despite its popularity in spatial arenas,  for its lack of
> clarity being a misused mathematical term. Database language of "select"
> and "project" are preferable, but  still too narrow. What  do you think of
> "view" ?
>
> "distinguish SpatialThings <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#dfn-spatialthing>
> from another by looking at their properties;"  change to "distinguish
> SpatialThings <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#dfn-spatialthing> from  one
> another by looking at their properties;"
>
>
> "helps choosing" to "helps with choosing" and similarly for "deciding"
>
> "The representations should allow determining the dimensionality of
> geometry data."  I'm not sure I get this. Does it mean prior to parsing the
> geometry itself?
>
> "don not" do not
>
> BP8
> "boarder" to "border"
>
> "whilst Australia is moving" is ambiguous in this context! Perhaps name
> the Australian authority that is moving? or change "moving" to "planning
> for" ?
>
> P.S -- I like the way this BP is heading!
>
> BP11
> This looks a bit heavy-handed for many use cases --- can it also allow
> that it is ok not to provide time and/or location stamps and allow tracking
> of changes? Under what circumstances might it be best practice to leave
> these out?  Why do we not ask this for all the rest of the data on the web?
>
> ------
> ok I am out of steam for now. see you in the morning! btw, I really like
> the writing style overall.
> -Kerry
>
>