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

Thanks Lars. Jeremy

On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 at 08:57 Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de> wrote:

> 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.
>
> Fine!
>
> > 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.
>
> Best,
>
> Lars
>
> > 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 <+49%2069%2015251752>
> > Telefax: +49 69 1525-1799 <+49%2069%2015251799>
> > mailto:l.svensson@dnb.de
> > http://www.dnb.de
> >
>
>