Re: BP comments

Bill & Andrea - thanks for your comments; now processed. Some points below
...

> Section 1.1
> "we've adopted a Linked Data approach"
> I wonder if we should introduce this a little, to explain how to share
spatial data effectively on the web, we need to build on the mechanisms and
strengths of the web, which means allowing people to link directly to
entities and data points of interest, and use HTTP to deliver information
about those things - which leads us to use the Linked Data approach.
>
> Or something like that - to justify the choice of approach and so avoid
potential criticism that it was chosen for dogmatic rather than pragmatic
reasons.

Agree. I've created ISSUE #218 <https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/218> to
capture this.

> In Best Practice 2, there is a reference to
http://dbpedia.org/page/Utrecht which is the 'information resource', with
corresponding http://dbpedia.org/resource/Utrecht as NIR.  Did you mean to
use the 'resource' version?

Thanks!

> BP5 NOTE
> It could be useful to explain what is meant by a "Web service URL" and
how it differs from another URL, and how to recognise one when you see it!
- in one sense, it's just another URL that you can GET and receive
something back.  The point about persistence is the important one, hence
avoiding URLs that are likely to change if the chosen technology changes

I thought that the Note already did provide some markers to what makes a
Web service URL? Please can you provide substitute text that does a better
job?

> BP17
> How does crowd-sourced data differ from other data? (I'm not saying it
doesn't! - just a genuine question on what considerations are specific to
data generated in this way, which might inform how it can best be dealt
with)

I've created a new ISSUE (#220 <https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/220>) so
that we can explore this question within the WG.

> BP18, Possible Approach to Implementation
> The metadata items here probably apply to all kinds of dataset, so
perhaps suggestions like these could be moved to a more general metadata
section - or maybe even just refer to something on DWBP or elsewhere?

Once again, I've created a new ISSUE (#221
<https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/221>) for this point.

> There is some overlap between all the linking BPs (19-23).  No harm in
separating out different aspects of good linking practice, but we should be
careful to avoid repetition and could perhaps start with some sign-posting
of how the recommendations are organised.  At the moment there is a
tendency to think "haven't I just read that in the previous section"

Agreed. There are certainly close relationships between these BPs. As we
work through how to structure the doc for easy use, I think we will see a
way to improve.

BR, Jeremy

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 at 07:58 Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
wrote:

> On 12/01/2016 22:18, Bill Roberts wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > BP7, Possible approach to implementation
> >
> > "in some cases, geometry can be 95% of the total data size" - other
> > percentages may apply! Maybe - "often the geometric data is a large
> > percentage of the total data size"
> >
> > The choice of how to represent geometry might depend most on the tools
> > you expect your audience to have easy access to.  Because different user
> > groups have different favourite tools, maybe good advice would be to
> > offer as many representations as you can - balancing that against the
> > cost of the additional storage or additional processing if converting
> > on-the-fly.  I don't think binary formats are inherently less useful
> > than text formats in this regard - most people are going to need some
> > tooling to process geometry data, whatever choice you make.
>
> +1. And this can be related to the more general BP of making data
> available in different formats - which, in turns, relates to HTTP conneg.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andrea
>
>