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

Thank you Linda.

You're right that SOTD and Changes needs updating. I've added SOTD to my
list ... should be pretty short now; like "we're done, pending concerns
raised during the OGC TC Vote"

On Fri, 5 May 2017 at 07:38 Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
wrote:

> Hi Jeremy,
>
>
>
> Yes, I can do #3 and look for, or write, some introductory text for the
> conclusion. I was also wondering if we should change the title to Gaps in
> current practice. Let’s do so.
>
>
>
> As to the editorial actions, I’ll do 4) and 5), and 3) if I get round to
> it – otherwise we’ll leave it until after the vote.
>
>
>
> We also need to change the sodt section and list the changes. But can do
> this after the vote as well, right?
>
>
>
> Linda
>
>
>
> *Van:* Jeremy Tandy [mailto:jeremy.tandy@gmail.com]
> *Verzonden:* vrijdag 5 mei 2017 08:31
> *Aan:* Linda van den Brink; SDW WG Public List
> *Onderwerp:* Conclusions and editorial for SDW BP doc - task allocation
> to complete by Monday
>
>
>
> 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
>
>