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

Jeremy, Linda,

I've just started reviewing the conclusions, and I'll contribute my revisions asap.

Meanwhile, I saw that in Section 13.1 (gaps about geometries on the Web), BP6 is not summarised. Unless you've already planned  to revise this section accordingly, I can take care of that.

Andrea

----
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific / Technical Project Officer
European Commission DG JRC
Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
Unit B6 - Digital Economy
Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
21027 Ispra VA, Italy

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/


----
The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
position of the European Commission.

From: Jeremy Tandy [mailto:jeremy.tandy@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 8:42 AM
To: Linda van den Brink; SDW WG Public List
Subject: 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<mailto: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<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