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

Re: 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 06:35:14 +0000
Message-ID: <CADtUq_3n3VLc4Po2VfXKVst4bj0eZKgd4zQwyEbAivoEa5Jabw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Oh- one more thing.

Regarding the Vocab/Profile Conneg open issue in the Conclusions, it would
be good to add a link to this new section from the yellow-highlighted text
in BP3 [1]. Feel free to amend the yellow text to suit.

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

However, HTTP Request headers are limited to specifying media-type,
character set, encoding (e.g. for compression) and language. There is no
mechanism to request that data is provided according to a particular data
model or 'profile' (see [RFC6906 <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bib-RFC6906>]
"profile" Link Relation Type), nor request data in a particular coordinate
reference system.

On Fri, 5 May 2017 at 07:30 Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 06:35:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 5 May 2017 06:35:58 UTC