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: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 06:41:32 +0000
To: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <13F9BF0BE056DA42BFE5AA6E476CDEFE0140F8361D@GNMSRV01.gnm.local>
Will do

Van: Jeremy Tandy [mailto:jeremy.tandy@gmail.com]
Verzonden: vrijdag 5 mei 2017 08:35
Aan: Linda van den Brink; SDW WG Public List
Onderwerp: Re: Conclusions and editorial for SDW BP doc - task allocation to complete by Monday

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<mailto: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 :-(


[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 06:42:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 5 May 2017 06:42:05 UTC