Update SDWBP based on new version of DCAT

[andrea-perego]

Revision prepared as discussed during the last SDW call: https://www.w3.org/2021/02/04-sdw-minutes.html

Relevant issue: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1084

Preview: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/sdw/bp-issue-1084/bp/index.html

Diff: https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fsdw%2Fbp%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fraw.githack.com%2Fw3c%2Fsdw%2Fbp-issue-1084%2Fbp%2Findex.html

NB: All revisions are explained in the HTML via EDNOTEs and in CSS and JavaScript code with comments.

Summary of revisions:

The BPs has been updated based on the new version of DCAT and GeoDCAT-AP, which include a more extended support for the description of spatial / temporal aspects - in particular, for the specification of bounding boxes, centroids, spatial and temporal resolution (see summary in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdwig/2019Jul/0000.html).

The implemented revisions concern the following parts of the BP document:

• Example 15 in BP5
• Example 21 in BP6
• Small revision in BP13's "Possible Approach to Implementation"
• Example 55 in BP13
• Example 59 in BP14
• Text and examples added after Example 59
• Added column for DCAT in the 2nd table in §A. Applicability of common formats to implementation of best practices

More details are documented in the changelog.

Additional revisions (mainly editorial) include the following:

• Updated the relevant examples to use the QUDT Units Vocabulary for the specification of units of measure instead of OM 1.8 (used in the SDWBP NOTE)
• Added link to BP-related GitHub issues
• Added @id to two examples to address issue https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1037
• Revised bib references based on those now available in SpecRef
• Fixed typos.
• Editorial fixes, to ensure markup consistency.
• Changed order of entries in the changelog, to list first the most recent changes
• Added new entry in changelog to summarise changes after the SDWBP NOTE

Finally, some fixes have been done based on the warnings raised by ReSpec:

• Switched to respec-w3c, as respec-w3c-common is now deprecated.
• Fixed some issues raised by the new version of ReSpec - in particular, bib references specified with @href instead of using double square brackets.
• Revised CSS to avoid conflicts and unintended formatting results, following updates on ReSpec (including BPs, figures, tables).
• Revised script to cross-ref best practices, as ReSpec no longer supports jQuery (which was used in the original script). I also opened an issue to suggest providing native support in ReSpec for BP cross-referencing - see https://github.com/w3c/respec/issues/3279

There are still some open editorial issues following updates to ReSpec:

• ReSpec still returns a warning, saying: "Document uses RFC2119 keywords but lacks a conformance section. Please add a <section id="conformance">.". So either the RFC2119 keywords are made lowercase, or a conformance section should be included.
• The OGC logo is misplaced - I reported the problem in https://github.com/w3c/respec/issues/3280
• There's a ReSpec bug in the BP summary, resulting in the duplication of the section heading - problem reported in https://github.com/w3c/respec/issues/3278
• The current ReSpec markup and styling for BPs is, IMO, not optimal, and it causes some strange formatting results in the SDWBP, where the SECTION element is used for sections "Why", "Intended Outcome", etc.

[dr-shorthair]

Looks good and careful so far.

I do worry that the multiple coloured nestings within the document are a distraction for readers. Could it be changed so that an actual best practice is stated in one box, which is then closed. Then the elaborations and examples follow it, rather than being nested within it. That way the reader does not find themselves interminably scrolling through one 'best practice'. I realise that this is a whole-of-document issue, but at the moment it looks like a bit of a mess. I find it difficult to even get my team to read it because it looks so confusing.

[andrea-perego]

Looks good and careful so far.

Thanks, @dr-shorthair .

I do worry that the multiple coloured nestings within the document are a distraction for readers.

Indeed. This is one of the side-effects of the ReSpec BP styling I was referring to.

I made an attempt to fix this with the last commit - see, e.g.:

https://raw.githack.com/w3c/sdw/bp-issue-1084/bp/index.html#globally-unique-ids

WDYT?

[dr-shorthair]

That is a big improvement