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: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:56:29 +0200
To: "'Linda van den Brink'" <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, "Scott Simmons" <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>
Cc: "'Jeremy Tandy'" <jtandy@wmo.int>
Message-ID: <025101d3369c$f960b8e0$ec222aa0$@w3.org>
[+Scott explicitly]

Hi Scott,

In the Status of This Document section of the Best Practices document that we're about to publish, what should the OGC part say? Would the following text work for instance? (I'm omitting markup for readability but this would have the appropriate links)

"For OGC: This is an OGC Best Practice document prepared by the Spatial Data on the Web Working Group (SDWWG) - a joint W3C-OGC project (see charter), in accordance with OGC Policies and Procedures section 8.6 Best Practices Documents. The document is prepared following W3C conventions."

Thanks,
Francois.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Linda van den Brink [mailto:l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 9:17 AM
> To: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> Cc: 'Jeremy Tandy' <jtandy@wmo.int>
> Subject: RE: Call for consensus: publication of the Spatial Data on the Web
> Best Practices document as final WG Note
> 
> Hi Francois,
> 
> As far as I know the OGC is all done voting, at least the motion to publish this
> as a BP has passed the technical committee.
> 
> You're right about the type, could you add that to the PR?
> 
> Linda
> 
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Francois Daoust [mailto:fd@w3.org]
> Verzonden: maandag 25 september 2017 16:58
> Aan: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> CC: 'Jeremy Tandy'; Linda van den Brink
> Onderwerp: RE: Call for consensus: publication of the Spatial Data on the
> Web Best Practices document as final WG Note
> 
> Jeremy, Linda,
> 
> I prepared a minor editorial update to add a "changes since 11 May 2017"
> section and to adjust the Status of This Document (SOTD) section accordingly:
> 
> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/970
> 
> There may be further updates to make to the OGC part of the SOTD.
> 
> Could you check and merge, please?
> 
> 
> Also, I noticed the following sentence in a recent commit:
> "Technically, there is nothing stop one writing, say, a GRIB decoder in
> JavaScript"
> 
> ... and I wonder whether there might be a typo there. Or is that proper
> English? I would have expected something like:
> "Technically, there is nothing *that stops one from* writing, say, a GRIB
> decoder in JavaScript"
> 
> Thanks,
> Francois.
> 
> 
> > From: Francois Daoust [mailto:fd@w3.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 9:58 PM
> >
> > 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 Tuesday, 26 September 2017 07:56:50 UTC

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