W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > March 2017

RE: Lars's comments on the BP document (was: BP document is FROZEN pending vote to release next WD)

From: Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 08:57:45 +0000
To: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
CC: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <24637769D123E644A105A0AF0E1F92EF010D2C3C9E@dnbf-ex1.AD.DDB.DE>
Hi Jeremy,

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 12:02 PM, Jeremy Tandy [mailto:jeremy.tandy@gmail.com] wrote:

> Your issue (3) relates to BP14 (I think) ... BP14 will get a thorough review in this sprint.
> That said, I think the first of your suggestions is correct, so I've queued that up in my
> working copy.

OK, thanks for the clarification. And yes, it's BP 14.

> Regarding the editorial comments - thank you! Fresh eyes and all that.
> (1), (2) and (3) are fixed in this commit [1] ... although I could only find one of the
> "[[" instances for (2) - perhaps that was fixed already?

Maybe. As long as they aren't there any more it doesn't really matter how they disappeared.
> (4) was fixed in an earlier edit - you'll see a green note box-out in §8 CRS intro listing
> a few options for conversion tools.


> Regarding (5), I've elected to keep the order as was. We had a discussion on this
> during the London F2F and the working group concluded that we wanted to provide
> material that went from easy (and widely useful) down to edge cases. Hopefully you
> can live with that?

I don't want to press that by any means. If the WG has concluded to keep it that way, it's fine with me.


> PS: I'm putting a discussion about sitemaps (BP4) on the agenda for tomorrow's call
> for some further discussion.

I haven't read the minutes yet but shall get to that later today...

> On Monday, February 06, 2017 12:01 PM, Jeremy Tandy
> [mailto:jeremy.tandy@gmail.com] wrote:
> > BP document is FROZEN and ready for people to read/review (see emails in this
> thread
> > [1] for the change-log).
> First of all: The changes have made the document much easier to read and it's much
> clearer, what is the proposed outcome when someone wants to implement the BPs. A
> large bunch of kudos to the editors and contributors! And +1 from me to publish this
> as a WD.
> And I have some comments.
> 1) What has happened to the references? I cannot find them in the github version...
> [1]
> 2) BP4 [2] says that "sitemaps currently are limited to several thousands of entries
> and will not work for larger datasets". IMHO this is not correct. The sitemap
> specification [3] says that "each Sitemap file that you provide must have no more than
> 50,000 URLs and must be no larger than 50MB (52,428,800 bytes)". It then goes on to
> state that you can provide multiple sitemaps and list them in an index file and that
> "index files may not list more than 50,000 Sitemaps and must be no larger than 50MB
> (52,428,800 bytes)". You can, however, have multiple index files, too. But even using
> just one index file means that you can list 50.000^^2 URLs in your sitemaps which
> should be enough for most applications. For the next iteration, I propose the following
> text:
> [[
> You may also consider using Sitemaps to direct the Web-crawler; please refer to the
> sitemap protocol specification [https://www.sitemaps.org/protocol.html] for more
> information.
> ]]
> 3) BP4 (again) in sec 3 (Decide what spatial relationships to use) says "The
> geographical, topological and social hierarchy should be described with clear semantics
> and registered with IANA Link relations." What exactly should be registered with IANA
> link relations? Is the following meant:
> [[
> The geographical, topological and social hierarchy should be described with clear
> semantics and use relations registered in the IANA Link relations registry.
> ]]
> or
> [[
> The geographical, topological and social hierarchy should be described with clear
> semantics. If you use relations not registered with IANA Link relations registry, please
> register them there.
> ]]
> Put differently: Is the BP to use only relations already registered with IANA, or is the
> BP to register new relations with IANA?
> The rest of my comments are only editorial:
> 1) In §5 [4] you refer to the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek (yay!). Please don't use the
> URL you see in the browser. Instead use the CMS-independent one [5].
> 2) There are two places in the document where references start with two square
> brackets "[[". As a result there are no hyperlinks to the (missing) references section.
> 3) s/converstion/conversion/ (somewhere in sec 8)
> 4) §8 and BP 17 say "Alternatively you can re-project your coordinates to WGS84
> Long/Lat using many available tools online." Do we want to point to specific tools?
> 5) §8 says "So we are now at the point where 99.9% of people can stop reading". If
> we really assume that 99.9% of all readers at that point they will never reach the very
> interesting information about the surface of the earth moving and the impact of that
> on self-driving cars that is two paragraphs further down... Maybe we should put the
> final paragraph as number three in §8.
> [1] https://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/

> [2] https://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#indexable-by-search-engines

> [3] https://www.sitemaps.org/protocol.html#index

> [4] https://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#spatial-things-features-and-geometry

> [5] http://www.dnb.de/

> Talk to you later,
> Lars
> *** Lesen. Hören. Wissen. Deutsche Nationalbibliothek ***
> --
> Dr. Lars G. Svensson
> Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
> Informationsinfrastruktur
> Adickesallee 1
> 60322 Frankfurt am Main
> Telefon: +49 69 1525-1752
> Telefax: +49 69 1525-1799
> mailto:l.svensson@dnb.de
> http://www.dnb.de


Received on Tuesday, 7 March 2017 08:58:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:17:04 UTC