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

RE: [BP] Reordering the best practices

From: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:33:11 +0000
To: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>, 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>
Message-ID: <13F9BF0BE056DA42BFE5AA6E476CDEFE0140F12AE9@GNMSRV01.gnm.local>
Thanks for your offer to help, that might be needed! I reserved the 20th to do the restructuring; will see how far I get with intro rewrites.

Van: Jeremy Tandy [mailto:jeremy.tandy@gmail.com]
Verzonden: donderdag 30 maart 2017 11:24
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

Oh. One more thing. It occurs to me that as we shift around the best practices into new groups we'll need to re-write the section intro materials.

For example, the intro to Linking [1] probably fits into "Webiness".

I think there's also a good opportunity to edit down some of the intro materials and remove some of the current duplication. Although I wouldn't touch the material for Spatial Data Access [2] as that's already in fine fettle.

Linda- *once the sections are agreed*, I'd be happy to help edit the intro material for the section headings.

Jeremy


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

[2]: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-exposing-via-api

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 at 10:08, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com<mailto:jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>> wrote:
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

Received on Thursday, 30 March 2017 09:33:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 30 March 2017 09:33:43 UTC