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

Re: [BP] Reordering the best practices

From: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:30:04 +0000
Message-ID: <CADtUq_1FzsDY5FSTn+z96mwU=9vSo75ob2_LQnoZb37wj=8CRA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, Clemens Portele <portele@interactive-instruments.de>
Cc: "SDW WG (public-sdw-wg@w3.org)" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, "payam.barnaghi@gmail.com" <payam.barnaghi@gmail.com>
Linda.

I'll update the wiki.

Regarding the Access section and possible conflation with Discovery /
Metadata - I'd prefer not to:

1/ what we're proposing is quite different to how OGC has traditionally
done web services - I wouldn't want that to get lost
2/ we make a lot of reference to DWBP from here, so although _we_ have only
one BP, there's a brace of best practices (new collective noun!) that are
mentioned.

Jeremy
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 at 10:26, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
wrote:

> Hi Jeremy,
>
>
>
> Could you add your option to the wiki as option 5 – Thematic & prioritsed
> ordering?
>
>
>
> I looked up ‘webiness’ vs ‘webbiness’ – but it’s not really a dictionary
> word so not sure which is right.
>
>
>
> I was thinking about the theme Access, which only has BP11. Could we add
> BP11 to the Web(b)iness theme? Or merge Access with Metadata (Discovery and
> access?)
>
>
>
> Clemens – I agree about options 2 and 3. I was struggling a bit with the
> workflow ordered one (option 1), the current ordering is taken from the
> Delft meeting minutes.
>
>
>
> Linda
>
>
>
>
>
> *Van:* Jeremy Tandy [mailto:jeremy.tandy@gmail.com]
> *Verzonden:* donderdag 30 maart 2017 11:08
> *Aan:* Clemens Portele; Linda van den Brink
> *CC:* SDW WG (public-sdw-wg@w3.org); payam.barnaghi@gmail.com
> *Onderwerp:* 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
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 30 March 2017 09:30:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 30 March 2017 09:30:50 UTC