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

Re: Call for consensus: publication of the Spatial Data on the Web Best Practices document as final WG Note

From: François Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 21:15:28 +0200
To: "Little, Chris" <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Cc: "jtandy@wmo.int" <jtandy@wmo.int>, "l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl" <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, "Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, "andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu" <andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu>
Message-ID: <115484fe-c96b-0986-21d0-843339967930@w3.org>

You can safely ignore all missing references. That happens when ReSpec 
does not load or run properly. That seems to happen from time to time 
these days, I'm not sure why for now. Forcing a refresh of the document 
- possibly more than once - should fix things most of the time.

Typically, the first reported "Please see for further details." will 
render as "Please see section 13. Gaps in current practice for further 
details." with a link to section 13, when ReSpec is loaded.

To tell whether ReSpec loaded correctly, check the presence of the 
sticky "ReSpec" menu near the top-right of the page (and, on large 
screens, the presence of the table of contents on the left side). If 
it's not there, ReSpec failed to load or run!

Note the published version of the document will not have ReSpec (that 
is, the published version will be the output of running ReSpec on the 
Editor's Draft, and won't include ReSpec anymore).


Le 20/09/2017 à 19:38, Little, Chris a écrit :
> Jeremy, Linda, and François
> Thank you for all the hard work over an extended period. It is a good read.
> Also spotted some Coxisms and Portelents.
> I support publication providing there are fixes for the only Nits that I could find in paragraphs:
>   "Best practice criteria": what should "Please see for further details." point to?
>   "Coordinate Reference Systems (CRS)": paragraph 12, "it makes you[r] data more accessible"
>   "Linked Data": *** "CSV as well as of Excel)" delete "of"
>   "Spatial data identifiers" in the beige box, what should "how you might link to these authoritative identifiers, see ." point to?
>   "Indexable Data": in the beige box, what should "organize the Spatial Things into subsets, as described in ." point to?
>   "Linking data": in the beige box, what should "This gap in current practice is discussed in ." point to?
>   "Spatial data encoding" paragraph 3 what should "ontologies for spatial data is provided in ." point to?
> "Geometries and coordinate reference systems": in the beige box, what should "For a high-level comparison of common spatial data vocabularies, see ." point to? Also following sentence too.
> I am still only 1/3 of the way through the document and now going home.
> Maybe my browser (Firefox 51.0.1) is not picking up some links or styles? Some links are there, but it is not obvious what to click to follow them, and if 'moused' over quickly, the change in pointer style is not visible. Rather than having a hot link of a . or whatever, some text is needed, which would be better with assistive technologies too.
> Still great work, even if the ReSpec software needs tweaking, Chris
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu [mailto:andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 8:01 AM
>> To: fd@w3.org; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
>> Cc: jtandy@wmo.int; l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl; Simon.Cox@csiro.au
>> Subject: RE: Call for consensus: publication of the Spatial Data on the
>> Web Best Practices document as final WG Note
>> Great work indeed!
>> Congratulations (and many thanks!) to the editors.
>> 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: Simon.Cox@csiro.au [Simon.Cox@csiro.au]
>> Sent: 20 September 2017 04:54
>> To: fd@w3.org; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
>> Cc: jtandy@wmo.int; l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl
>> Subject: RE: Call for consensus: publication of the Spatial Data on the
>> Web  Best Practices document as final WG Note
>> Great document. Very Tandy-esque and Brinkish.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Francois Daoust [mailto:fd@w3.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, 19 September, 2017 15:58
>> To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
>> Cc: 'Jeremy Tandy' <jtandy@wmo.int>; Linda van den Brink
>> <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
>> Subject: Call for consensus: publication of the Spatial Data on the Web
>> Best Practices document as final WG Note
>> Hello Spatial Data on the Web Working Group participants,
>> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to request publication of the latest
>> Editor's Draft of the Spatial Data on the Web Best Practices document
>> as a final Working Group Note.
>> The latest Editor's Draft is available at:
>> https://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/
>> The document was reviewed internally by OGC Members over summer. A few
>> recent changes were made to the document as a result of this review, as
>> well as to fix remaining editorial issues that had been raised some
>> time ago.
>> Main changes:
>> - A note was added to note the absence of scientific format in the
>> "common format" table:
>> https://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#applicability-formatVbp
>> - Some text was added to the scope section to note that critical
>> decision making scenarios based on spatial data are beyond the scope of
>> this Best Practices document:
>> https://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#scope-spatialdata
>> You may check GitHub's commit history for details:
>> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/commits/gh-pages/bp/index.html
>> Please let us know if you have any concerns by next Monday 25 September
>> 2017.
>> Silence is considered consent.
>> Thanks,
>> Francois,
>> W3C team contact
Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2017 19:15:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:33 UTC