Detailed planning BP document

From Spatial Data on the Web Working Group
Jump to: navigation, search

Work on the Spatial Data on the Web Best Practices is done in shortish cycli we call sprints. Three more sprints are expected until the end of April, resulting in a new version of the BP document every 6 weeks or so. Outline:

December 2016 - beginning of February 2017

Sprint plan:

  • Action 242: Restructure the document to move the summary to the top and remove the template.
  • Action 232, 233, and 234: Further work on BP 4 (indexable spatial data), including addition of examples and a description on what is indexed.
  • Action 247: Rewrite of section 7 Coordinate Reference Systems.
  • Action 248: Further work on BP7 (use HTTP URIs) + BP14 (Links to related resources) based on discussion at the december 2016 face to face meeting in London.
  • Action 240: Remove BP17 (crowdsourcing) from BP document.
  • Outreach to get review from wider public at the end of this sprint (Ed).
    • Including horizontal review by W3C groups on accessibility, security, internationalization etc. (Phil)

Backlog - To do

February - mid March 2017:

Dataset metadata

Spatial data vocabularies and file-formats


  • BP9: previously we had a discussion about linear referencing (and related CRS) & decided that this was really an edge case; there are several vocabs for describing topological spatial relationships, but we’ve looked for vocabularies to describe “egocentric” (?) relationships like “in front”, “behind”, “above”, “below” etc. but there is no evident best practice; @josh is actioned ACTION #128 to talk to @cperey to gather views about relative positioning from the AR community; QUESTION: if there’s not much for us to say, should we merge with BP10 (where we can define the existing vocabularies for “spatial predicates”; e.g. equals, disjoint, intersects, touches, within, contains, overlaps and crosses) and identify a _gap_ in practice about the missing vocabulary for spatial relationships (distance relations “at”, “nearby” & “far away”; directional relations “left”, “in front of” & “astern”)?
  • BP9 owner: Josh Lieberman


  • BP10: priority provide guidance on choice of vocabulary for describing spatial data; inevitably will need to talk about file formats too; aim to include @BillRobert’s thoughts about “balancing performance against operating costs” when making those choices; key aspect is the use of MULTIPLE FORMATS (and/or multiple vocabularies) - see DWBP BP14: Provide data in multiple formats
  • BP10 owner: Bill Roberts


  • do we want/need to introduce a “samePlaceAs” property?
  • Jeremy Tandy to seek consensus via mailing list


  • BP14: describing the links between spatial things is dependent on the vocabulary choices (see BP10); update in light of amendments to BP10 etc.; add references to Appendix B “auth sources of geographic identifiers”; @lars said he check up about the Beacon format; we also need to consider the “hypermedia” implications of links (e.g. what can we do to help data consumers know what to do with the resource at the end of the link); also see below proposal to delete BP15 and migrate any remaining useful content from there into BP14
  • BP14 owner: Jeremy Tandy



  • Decide if Appendix A still provides value; if so then update else remove it
  • move to following sprint?

Spatial data access and APIs

  • BP11: use of “convenience APIs” is covered in DWBP §8.10.1; review SDW best practice to determine what is different (seems to be talking about how you might conveniently expose data in an SDI through Web-friendly APIs?) and update content such that it ties back _properly_ to DWBP
  • BP11 owner: Clemens Portele (assisted by Bart van Leeuwen)

Coordinate Reference Systems

  • BP3 and BP17 (was BP18) - work in progress with @byron (see Action 241)
  • BP3 and BP17 owner: Byron Cochrane (PULL REQUEST submitted)

describing properties that change over time

  • BP6 is pretty much complete except for two examples (approach #2: version history of change to extent of city of Amsterdam, approach #3: GPS track (data stream?) from an alpine marathon runner) … @linda thinks Geonovum might be able to craft these examples
  • BP6 owner: Linda van den Brink

Editorial

  • Remove BP2: (provide context required to interpret data values) We had a HUGE discussion on the mailing-list about UoM etc., but don’t think we made any conclusions; currently this best practice is vague and not actionable; propose to remove BP2 in this sprint _unless_ someone can write content to make this (i) specifically relevant to spatial data, (ii) actionable, and (iii) best practice that is evident in the wild
  • Jeremy Tandy to seek consensus via mailing list


  • Remove BP15: (use links to find related data) this is (i) the flip side of BP14, and doesn’t really say anything new, (ii) consumer oriented rather than for data publishers (so out of our amended scope) … migrate any useful content to BP14 and delete
  • owner: Jeremy Tandy


  • Remove §14 Narrative but parse for useful information that may be incorporated elsewhere in the BP doc before we discard it to the annals of GitHub history
  • owner: Linda van den Brink


  • Remove §13 Other best practices - pending merge of BP16 into BP10, and consolidation of CRS material in BP3 and BP17
  • owner: Linda van den Brink

Review public comments

Mid March - end of April 2017:

Only editorial changes - nothing substantive

Spatial data access and APIs

  • BP12: search is a special case of an API; during the London F2F @josh said he could provide advice about what functions should be included to support _spatial_ search; should BP12 be merged into BP11 or is it sufficiently distinct?
  • BP13: (provide subsets for large datasets) this is probably OK, but we need to review (i) how it relates to DWBP 18: Provide subsets for large datasets and (ii) SDW-BP 11 (spatial data APIs) … if we decide this BP still provides unique advice, then we’ll need some examples; queue the Coverage folks :)

“how to test” and examples

  • strong drive to get these populated … but if you’ve got material, don’t wait, please provide it NOW!

open ISSUES

  • many issues are related to specific best practices (& these will be dealt with piece meal); remaining issues to be dealt with systematically during the final sprint

Editorial

  • Update Appendix C (cross ref with requirements): @payam is reviewing both SDW-BP and DWBP against the requirements in the UCR doc to make sure we’ve covered everything … and if we find gaps, we’ll need to call these out explicitly
  • Populate §15 Conclusions once we have the majority of the content in place; should we talk about the big changes that these BPs drive? or gaps in best practice? or echo DWBP’s §10 Data on the web challenges graphic? … *topic for discussion at Delft F2F*
  • Re-order the best practices

May - June 2017:

  • Time buffer period
  • Publish final version of BP document.