Hi Linda, thanks for this, it is good to have these four clear strategies as alternatives. After a first reading of the page my preference was option 4. Option 2 is not so different, but I prefer option 4 as I think that, for example, BP8 should come before the CRS BPs. I have doubts about option 3 as, for example, I think that BP3 is not really about metadata and that while BP4 makes use of metadata it is not about metadata per se either. Using the term workflow in option 1 may be tricky, too, since a publisher probably should not wait to consider discovery, access and linking until after he/she decided on vocabularies/formats/representations/CRSs? Clemens On 29. Mar 2017, at 12:31, Linda van den Brink <L.vandenBrink@geonovum.nl<mailto:L.vandenBrink@geonovum.nl>> wrote: Hi all, At the last f2f, and also at the London f2f, we discussed a final reordering of the best practices (see minutes[1]). I took the action of preparing some proposals. My first attempts are on the wiki[2]. This is not yet taking into account the two extra best practices that will probably emerge because of refactoring of BP8 and BP14. My own preference goes to proposal 1 or 4. One thing seems clear: in all my proposals BP7 (Use globally unique persistent HTTP URIs for spatial things) comes first… What do you all think? [1]: https://www.w3.org/2017/03/20-sdw-minutes#x11 [2]: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_2017_reordering_proposal#Proposal_3:_Reordering_the_sections_not_the_BPs Linda
Received on Thursday, 30 March 2017 08:14:42 UTC