- From: Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 00:34:25 +0000
- To: François Daoust <fd@w3.org>, "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: <CAHrFjc=Q1k2YDi4Oe=Lq+qvtXJBWvykKZqOHO+a=6-ofcxHNhw@mail.gmail.com>
Fantastic Job - At last weeks OGC meeting the document was referenced many times, at least in this community it is starting to have a real impact- Mission Accomplished !! That said the document is only good if people read it so keep up with the marketing, after all it's an easier pitch than EME ;-) Ed On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 at 03:16 François Daoust <fd@w3.org> wrote: > Chris, > > 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). > > Thanks, > Francois. > > > > 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 > > -- *Ed Parsons *FRGS Geospatial Technologist, Google +44 7825 382263 @edparsons www.edparsons.com
Received on Thursday, 21 September 2017 00:35:00 UTC