Re: [BP] Reordering the best practices

Hi.

> thanks for this, it is good to have these four clear strategies as
alternatives

+1

So looking at the four options, I'm tending toward option 4 - albeit with a
few modifications to the running order.

I also thought I'd note that at Delft f2f we agreed to refactor BP8 and
BP14 into two parts:
- BP8a :: general geometry publication
- BP8b :: multiple geometries
- BP14a :: general linking (not spatial at all - but DWBP didn't mention
this stuff)
- BP14b :: link relation types for spatial data

(working names - I know we can do better)

I also think that BP10 sets the tone for the "key spatial aspects" as it
introduces the four categories of spatial data publication (simple, web
app, data integration, spatial analysis) - this feels like a good starting
point when we talk about the _spatial_ content.

Looking again, the "other" section feels like it's always going to be a
poor relation. Although my next suggestion busts the "priority" ordering, I
wonder if these two should be included in the section where we talk
specifically about the content that makes data into spatial data (e.g.
section #2 "key spatial aspects")? BP9 kind of goes with the other CRS best
practices (although I think we should be clear in the section intro that
relative positioning is not relevant to _every_ application; and BP6 is
about spatial data so could be appended to that group of best practices.

So my suggestion for a re-ordered option 4 is:
- *Webiness*: 7, 4, 14a
- *Spatial data*: 10, 8a, 8b, 3, 17, 9, 14b, 6
- *Access*: 11
- *Metadata*: 1, 5
- Linking: [incorporated elsewhere]
- Other: [incorporated elsewhere]

I quite like the short section titles here: Webiness (should that have two
'b's?), Spatial data, Access and Metadata.

So that would make it a thematic grouping, with the themes prioritised.

What do you all think?

(Linda - do you want me to add this to the wiki page?)

Jeremy

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 at 09:14 Clemens Portele <
portele@interactive-instruments.de> wrote:

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>
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