Re: BP: updates to section 12.6, removal of section 12.8

Thanks, Jeremy.

git can be a mystery at times …

Clemens



On 11 Mar 2017, at 10:25, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com<mailto:jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Clemens

all merged. although I had to work around a merge conflict on PR 604.

Jeremy

On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 at 05:09 Clemens Portele <portele@interactive-instruments.de<mailto:portele@interactive-instruments.de>> wrote:
Jeremy, Linda, all,

a pull request has been created

https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/603


It covers the discussion below and the decisions concerning BPs 12 and 13 in the meeting on March 8:

• BPs 12 and 13 have been removed as agreed in the meeting on March 8, 2017.
• The BP markup for the two BPs has been kept to avoid renumbering of BPs in this edit.
• Some content has been moved to section 12.6 and BP 11 and other content from the email discussions has been added.
• References to BPs 12 and 13 have been updated.
• Section 12.8 is obsolete and has been removed, too.

I have also created a separate pull request to include a paragraph in BP 11 about the recent OGC White Paper on Open Geospatial APIs (http://docs.opengeospatial.org/wp/16-019r4/16-019r4.html) and in particular about the "OGC API Essentials".

https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/604


Best regards,
Clemens


On 9 Mar 2017, at 17:02, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com<mailto:jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>> wrote:

yes please to all of the above!

Jeremy

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 at 16:00 Clemens Portele <portele@interactive-instruments.de<mailto:portele@interactive-instruments.de>> wrote:
Jeremy,

I just had a look at the section and agree that it does not add anything important to what we have already in 12.6 / BP11.

I could make the change / PR together with the edits for BP12/BP13 (I just looked at the minutes from yesterday). I will make the changes discussed in the email discussion and update all references to these BPs - by Saturday at the latest.

I assume I should leave stubs for BP12 / BP13 in there for now to avoid renumbering and we deal with the order/numbering in the last sprint?

Best regards,
Clemens


On 9 Mar 2017, at 16:44, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com<mailto:jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>> wrote:


SDW-BP section 12.8 "Dealing with large datasets" [1] doesn't contain any best practices itself, and only seems to duplicate information in the revised BP11.

It exists because we intended to echo the headings from DWBP.

I don't think we need it anymore.

Clemens, Linda; what do you think?

If you agree, I'd like to invite one of you to delete the offending section and submit a PR. Please.

Thanks, Jeremy


[1]: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-large-datasets