DWBP SDWBP allignment notes

Hi Jeremy,

Here are the notes I made reviewing the two BP docs as promised.  I have not had time time adjust much to the feedback last night.  My approach was to review your BP Consolidation Proposal notes and add comments.  Mostly, I generally agreed with your existing comments so you can assume general agreement with those BPs not commented on here.  Notes are still very rough and need further thought, but provide me a starting point. Not sure all these notes agree with each other yet!


SDWBP 3 - This would more naturally fit in reuse of existing vocabularies discussion (DWBP 15?).  Important point is when to make spatial relationships explicit or leave implicit


SDWBP 8 - I am inclined to think DWBP 3 is the correct place to talk about this.  Can recommend WGS 84 as default, but not convinced that this is just a "data quality" issue

SDWBP 9 - Same as 3. Belongs in DWBP 15


SDWBP 13 - Seems very similar to 3 and 9 but not sure 23 is the place for this.


SDWBP 14-18 - All of Sensors and Observations section.  Need to think how to handle this.  Do we lose something valuable that is not covered by SSN if we take this out?

SDWBP 19-22 - Isn't linked data an implicit goal of this and a specific need for DWBP? Or if these are needed for peculiarities of spatial, should these specifically link to related "BP for Publishing Linked Data" topics?

SDWBP 24-26 - This section should align with DWBP 1-7 - the various forms of metadata BC 24 - Do not see how this differs from 3,9,13,23 BC 25 - Crawability of data is not a specific concern of spatial. Ideally if needed it should be in DWBP, but this is not possible.  I have some strong disagreements with the perceived value of crawliblity when applied to data, but can leave that aside for the time being.

SDWBP 26 - already covered in DWBP 2 "spatial coverage".  For API guidance look to alignment with DWBP 25


SDWBP 27 -  Isn't this the same as providing subsets DWBP 11? Also, APIs are covered in DWBP 23 -26.  Not sure what is that geo specific here


SDWBP 28 - Most of this section is not Geo specific.  Some out of date info here.  WFS section needs a serious update to be with the times.  As of OGC Testbed 11, WFS has a restful interface and has always been able to carry payloads other than GML.  APIs are well covered generally in DWBP 23-26. Should align geo specific concerns with these


SDWBP 29 - The examples section of "GetCapabilities" is useful. Topic is otherwise covered in DWBP API section.  There has been much discussion in other venues about the need for a landing page that contains GetCapabilities info.

SDWBP 30 - Again little specific to geo.  Should be covered in DWBP?

As I said these are rough notes.  I hope to work more on these tomorrow and may begin to experiment with alignment with DWBP by topic (rather than number as suggested by Phil).  Already seeing issue there such as in metadata section where spatial metadata generally covers many of the first few best practices.  So a one to one alignment may be difficult without a great deal of repetition.

Cheers,

Byron Cochrane
SDI Technical Leader
New Zealand Geospatial Office

E  bcochrane@linz.govt.nz<mailto:bcochrane@linz.govt.nz>| DDI 04 460 0576| M 021 794 501

Wellington Office, Level 7, Radio New Zealand House, 155 The Terrace
PO Box 5501, Wellington 6145, New Zealand | T 04 460 0110
W  www.linz.govt.nz<http://www.linz.govt.nz/> | data.linz.govt.nz<http://www.data.linz.govt.nz/>
[cid:image001.png@01D1DDB9.E2390150]


________________________________
This message contains information, which may be in confidence and may be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not peruse, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately (Phone 0800 665 463 or info@linz.govt.nz) and destroy the original message. LINZ accepts no responsibility for changes to this email, or for any attachments, after its transmission from LINZ. Thank You.