Re: suggested edits to bp doc

BTW- regarding your point on consistent use of URI and URL, I see URI being
used when the context is about identifiers and URL being used when the
context relates to information resources that we expect to resolve given an
HTTP request.

Jeremy

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 at 14:48 Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>