Re: BP narrative comments

Hi Rob. Am now trying to digest you comments ...

Overview:
... I agree with your suggestion that we rephrase to concentrate on a
web-centric activity; I'll try to incorporate this

Step (1):
... reading your points, I'm thinking that perhaps my intent differs from
your expectation? I don't think we're trying to write a "flood prediction &
monitoring" best practice- only to use the flooding scenario as a basis for
explaining how various types of spatial data would be published on the web.
For this element, I simply wanted the "excuse" to work with coverage data.
I'm sure that all of the points you raise (from triggers through to input
of local conditions) are valid- but I lack the expertise to provide a
comprehensive description of these aspect.

Step (2):
... "administrative information": yes, too broad. Intended to refine this
as more detail appeared in the narrative.
Reading the discussion about URIs and URLs; I think the key point is about
distinguishing between the *Thing* and the *Representation(s) of the thing*.
What is the best practice here? I think that this concern is well
illustrated in the [draft] W3C URLs in Data Primer [1]; it talks about the
"Landing Page" that "describes" the "Thing". The Primer provides some
Recommendations. Do these begin to address your concerns? Also, I'm
reminded of a discussion with TimBL (during TPAC 2015) where he talked
about his experience with vCard; the distinction became "overly academic"
(I'm paraphrasing), it was simple for data consumers figure our that the
vCard represented the _Person_; no-one cared about the electronic
representation of a business card. That is, most of the time, you tell
through context whether you're talking about the Thing or the Landing Page.
You also mention "in-bound links" that enable other related information to
also be discovered ... from my POV, I don't yet see any best practice here.
Offline, we've talked around this issue a number of times. Is there any
concrete practice that is being used "in the wild"?

As ever, Rob, you're right in the thick of the thorny issues (and probably
seeing things that I don't!).

Are you available for a call so we can talk through these things verbally?

BR, Jeremy

[1]: https://www.w3.org/TR/urls-in-data/

On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 at 06:14 Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Rob. Thanks for beginning to work on this. I'm still tied up with
> meetings at WMO today but will take a detailed look on Monday. Hope to
> catch up soon ... Jeremy
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 at 16:55, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Hi - I've started reviewing the narrative and have got some substantive
>> comments to address before going much further.  These may seem scary, but
>> it illustrates IMHO the value of the narrative in teasing out the role of a
>> BP here :-)
>>
>> [image: pasted1]
>>
>