RE: Proposal to publish Best Practice for public review

Linda, Jeremy, and colleagues,

Thank you for all the hard work. I approve!

But I have several minor editorial Comments, which could be added without effort by the editors – several are updates to moving targets:


  1.  I think that an introductory paragraph on Responsible Use should be 4.6, at the end of Scope, as a natural readable place, and it is an important topic.


  1.  The list of RDF namespaces at 6.2 has the slightly confusing shared description of GeoSPARQL for two separate namespaces. Could one be removed, or explained why there are two?


  1.  Section 10, first Note repeats “of countries”.



  1.  Following the Note, the text is probably best as “You can publish data ‘as is’ in one….” To make it easier to read.



  1.  Para 2 after Example 27, perhaps would be better as “every CRS and datum should define the geographic area, and perhaps timescale, within which it is intended to be used; “



  1.  Example 51 ‘snipped’ -> ‘snippet’



  1.  Section 15.4 “web APIs, such as OGC API - Features<https://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#dfn-ogc-api-features> [OAF1<https://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bib-oaf1>] and OGC API - EDR [OAEDR<https://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bib-oaedr>] (Environmental Data Retrieval) will soon have filter capabilities which allow one to extract a small subset of the data (OGC API - Features: Part 3)” needs rephrasing to be more accurate. I suggest: “web APIs, such as OGC API - Features<https://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#dfn-ogc-api-features> [OAF1<https://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bib-oaf1>] which will soon have filter capabilities to allow one to extract a small subset of the data (OGC API - Features: Part 3), or OGC API - EDR [OAEDR<https://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bib-oaedr>] (Environmental Data Retrieval) which allows multi-dimensional geometric patterns of data to be extracted, such as for points, polygons, cubes or trajectories.” Note that the OGC EDR API SWG are unlikely to support API Features Part 3 (CQL) as it is perceived as prone to DoS attacks.



  1.  In Annex A, at the end of the first Note, “The ability to work with scientific spatial data in a Web browser was the driving motivation for [COVJSON-OVERVIEW<https://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bib-covjson-overview>].” I suggest adding “OGC has now adopted CoverageJSON as a formal Community Standard.” Perhaps add a reference too, to https://opengeospatial.github.io/ogcna-auto-review/21-069.html




  1.  In Annex E Glossary entry  “OGC API - Features: A set of resource-oriented API building blocks for creating, modifying, and querying geographical features.” I suggest adding “ There are several other consistent APIs published or under development to create a suite of geospatial ‘building blocks’.”



  1.  In Annex H Normative References, please add authors to reference for OGC API-EDR “OGC API - Environmental Data Retrieval Standard<https://docs.ogc.org/is/19-086r5/19-086r5.html>. OGC. 2022. Mark Burgoyne; David Blodgett; Charles Heazel; Chris Little. URL: https://docs.ogc.org/is/19-086r5/19-086r5.html” (or remove authors from all the others!)


HTH, Chris

From: Simon Cox <simon.j.d.cox@pm.me>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2023 11:40 AM
To: Linda van den Brink l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl.Perhaps<mailto:l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl.Perhaps> the ext could be altered to identify the two separate instances of the ontology?
Cc: SDW WG (public-sdw-wg@w3.org) <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>; Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>
Subject: Re: Proposal to publish Best Practice for public review

You don't often get email from simon.j.d.cox@pm.me<mailto:simon.j.d.cox@pm.me>. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>

This email was received from an external source.   Always check sender details, links & attachments.
Well done Linda and Timo.

Regards - Simon Cox

simon.j.d.cox@pm.me<mailto:simon.j.d.cox@pm.me>
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420


+61 403 302 672

On Boonwurrung land

Sent with Proton Mail<https://proton.me/> secure email.

------- Original Message -------
On Monday, June 19th, 2023 at 19:30, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl<mailto:l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>> wrote:


Dear group,

Timo Homburg et al have been working hard on an update of the Spatial Data on the Web Best Practices. They are now ready to publish a new version of this Note for public review (followed by, after processing the comments, a final Note).

Therefore, I propose to publish the SDW-BP [1] as a Draft Note ready for public review. This is a by-correspondence vote which closes in 1 week. If no comments/objections are made known to us, we will consider this group approval.

We plan to have a 1 month review, also coordinated with OGC; followed by a 4-week period to respond to public comment and then publication of the final version of the Note.

[1]: https://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/


Linda & Jeremy
SDWWG chairs