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

I think that our examples (as presented during the flooding scenario
narrative) should provide implementors with a good level of insight about
how to get stuff done. I imagine that readers will identify with one or
more of the actors in the scenarios we describe to help inform them what is
important for their concerns.

That said, I do see us referencing DWBP rather than repeating. In a lot of
cases, I think we need to extend the DWBP best practice(s) with spatial
specific elements ... so "what you need to do to publish spatial data on
the web" will be written in our doc.

They should still read DWBP though. We should cite it as a normative
reference.

Jeremy
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 at 10:25, Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com> wrote:

> 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
>