Re: Proposals for consolidating SDW best practices and aligning with DWBP

Hello everyone,

I very much agree we should build upon the very good work of the DWBP, that
said I believe the document this group produces should be able to be read
on it's own and provide all that is needed for a reader to publish spatial
data without having to cross-reference the documents themselves.  This
might I guess result in the expectation we pass on to our readers that they
need to read DWBP first ?

ed


On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 at 07:50 Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
wrote:

> I agree with Jeremy’s proposal to align the best practices of the SDWBP
> with the DWBP, including the removal of some of ours because they’re well
> described in the DWBP now.
>
>
>
> In addition to 2)… I’d like to put the best practices in the SDWBP in the
> same order as the best practices in the DWBP. This would make it easier to
> read the two docs together.
>
>
>
> But I don’t necessarily agree with the consolidation i.e. merging some of
> our BPs. I see how they could be grouped, but on the other hand they are
> separated out now, and seem to be nice chucks of information on their own.
> If we merge them, this could mean stripping out useful text, or keeping it
> but ending up with one long BP where we now have three or four.
>
>
>
> We did receive some feedback on our FPWD regarding the structure of the
> document and its length, I plan to look those up. They may give us some
> direction.
>
>
>
> It’s a puzzle…
>
>
>
> *Van:* Jeremy Tandy [mailto:jeremy.tandy@gmail.com]
> *Verzonden:* maandag 11 juli 2016 18:29
> *Aan:* SDW WG Public List; Linda van den Brink; Payam Barnaghi
> *Onderwerp:* Proposals for consolidating SDW best practices and aligning
> with DWBP
>
>
>
> All- in readiness for discussion at this week's SDW BP call, I've prepared
> some homework for you all.
>
>
>
> We editors have been discussing how to make the SDW BP document more
> useful to readers.
>
>
>
> Two of the key approaches are:
>
> 1. make it shorter (by consolidating best practices)
>
> 2. align with the (excellent) work from DWBP [1]; don't repeat, extend
> where we have 'spatial specific' concerns.
>
>
>
> (we'll also be using the narrative to provide context to a set of examples
> and working on the introductory material ... )
>
>
>
> We editors haven't yet concluded the best approach; recognising that
> consolidation makes things shorter (and easier to consume) but at the risk
> of loosing valuable detail.
>
>
>
> I've created a proposal for consolidation / alignment on the SDW wiki [2]
>
>
>
> This is fairly brutal. Poised for discussion. What do you think!
>
>
>
> Jeremy
>
>
>
>
>
> [1]: http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/
>
> [2]: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_consolidation_proposal
>
-- 

*Ed Parsons *FRGS
Geospatial Technologist, Google

Google Voice +44 (0)20 7881 4501
www.edparsons.com @edparsons