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

Conclusions and editorial for SDW BP doc - task allocation to complete by Monday

From: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 06:30:43 +0000
Message-ID: <CADtUq_0m81vLi7aR2=jnP5DGne4a5SM+=Yd8rVTJg3yjiGiDXw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Hi Linda-

looking through the Detailed Plan, I see a couple of sections where we need
to agreed who is doing what:

Conclusions [1]
#2) How to express units of measurement in an interoperable way (see discussion
thread
<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Feb/0531.html> and
summary
<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Jul/0160.html>which
provides a reasonable outline of the problem)
#3) Content negotiation (as recommended in DWBP Best Practice 19: Use
content negotiation for serving data available in multiple formats
<https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#Conneg>only works for *media type* - not for
choosing data vocabulary / profile or CRS representation ... (*note
the draft charter for Dataset Exchange WG
<https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/charter/>(DXWG) who aspire to provide a REC for
"content negotiation by profile"*)

I see that the Conclusions section already has a section on Conneg for CRS;
but this doesn't cover all the concerns of (#3) - choosing a data vocab or
profile

I could do (#2) - I think I wrote the summary of the thread way back when.

Could you look at (#3)?

Also the Conclusions section needs a bit of introductory text; e.g. to
indicate that "here's where we talk about things where there is no best
practice, but can cause you problems". I wonder even if "Conclusions" is
the correct title, or if it should just be "Gaps in best practice"?

Do you have some text from your other paper that could go in there?

Editorial [2]

   - *(1) tbd* | Add a *Contributors* section (following the list of
   *Editors*) to the document header (as per DWBP
   <https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/> to reflect the hard-working working group
   members and also update Appendix E. Acknowledgements
   <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#acknowledgments> - if you're listed as
   having contributed on GitHub, you're on the list (14 in total as of 28-Mar)
   ... also see request to use ORC-IDs for contributors
   <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Mar/0251.html> and
   the follow on email thread
   - *(2) tbd* | Add list of namespace prefixes of the vocabularies/schemas
   used in the BP document
   - *(3) tbd* | Check that we are consistent in use of "geospatial" and
   "spatial" terms (see GitHub Issue 206
   <https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/206>)
   - *(4) tbd* | Ensure consistent style of text and reference citation -
   see GitHub Issues 193 <https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/193> and 222
   <https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/222>
   - *(5) tbd* | Check that all the "How to test" statements are action
   oriented; e.g. "Check that 'a', 'b' and 'c' can be found"


I think you're already working on (4)

I can do (1) and (2) over the weekend.

Could you have a go at (5)?

We said we'd need to wait until the document is complete for (3) ... such
purely editorial corrections could be managed as errata (?) after we start
the TC vote perhaps.

...

Please let me know if you're happy with this. I will be working through the
weekend to get all my changes done :-(

Jeremy

[1]:
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#Conclusions

[2]:
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#Editorial2
Received on Friday, 5 May 2017 06:31:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 5 May 2017 06:31:27 UTC