RE: [BP] Reordering the best practices

True, let’s keep it separate then.

Van: Jeremy Tandy [mailto:jeremy.tandy@gmail.com]
Verzonden: donderdag 30 maart 2017 11:30
Aan: Linda van den Brink; Clemens Portele
CC: SDW WG (public-sdw-wg@w3.org); payam.barnaghi@gmail.com
Onderwerp: Re: [BP] Reordering the best practices

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<mailto: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<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<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>); payam.barnaghi@gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<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