search

w3c / sdw

Repository for the Spatial Data on the Web Working Group
https://www.w3.org/2020/sdw/
149 stars 81 forks source link

Update index.html - DCAT2 #1384

Closed PeterParslow closed 1 year ago

PeterParslow commented 1 year ago

Changes related to https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1297

Some DCAT -> DCAT2 changes had already been made

Should we remove DCAT1 from the informative references? If so, should we then re-use the id/link VOCAB-DCAT to mean DCAT2?

situx commented 1 year ago

The changes look good. I would be in favor of removing the DCAT1 reference. After all, DCAT-2 has been around for almost three years now.

PeterParslow commented 1 year ago

@situx : there are two ways to remove the DCAT 1 reference:

Which do you think works best?

situx commented 1 year ago

I would go with the first option. Then it is immediately clear by just looking at the reference in the text that we point to version 2 of DCAT

PeterParslow commented 1 year ago

Now I discover that I can't see how to do that - I can't see where the "informative references" entries come from, other than those in bpconfig.js "localBiblio" array (which doesn't contain either VOCAB-DCAT entry).

index.html has a comment referring to "SPECREF" and a commented out call to

// preProcess: [bpCrossRefs]

Does anyone know how the informative references section is assembled?

situx commented 1 year ago

I think it is in the bpCrossRefs file, and an additional set of standard references was provided during the compilation of Respec. DCAT is likely common enough to be among them. Also at the end of the document there is a call to bpCrossRefs() Does it not work if you add DCAT-2 to the localBiblio?

PeterParslow commented 1 year ago

"I think it is in the bpCrossRefs file" - that was my though from the preProcess statement. But I can't see any bpCrossRefs file in the repository. I didn't need to add VOCAB-DCAT-2, someone had already done that. The remaining bit is to remove VOCAB-DCAT because there are no more references to it.

PeterParslow commented 1 year ago

I was also wondering how to change what is included about issue 1084. What gets pulled in is the initial description of that issue. It would be fairer now to say something like:

"The Best Practices have been updated to use DCAT2, but not to check if DCAT2 itself introduces any new best practices beyond those already described."

I have put that as a comment on the issue, but the summary that is imported to the BP document still implies it hasn't been done - the reader would need to click through.

As an alternative, perhaps we close issue 1084? Noone in the group has proposed a new best practice, which suggests either that DCAT2 does not offer any new best practices, or that the new things it does offer are not yet widely used.

situx commented 1 year ago

I think it makes sense to close issue #1084 As for the DCAT issue. Could we not update all references to DCAT-2 and open a new issue for removing DCAT from the bibliography? As I also do not see how to do that currently, it probably needs further investigation

PeterParslow commented 1 year ago

All the references are now to DCAT-2. The new issue is #1387

PeterParslow commented 1 year ago

"Not sure if you figured out that a lot of bib references are not defined locally but in specref, see https://www.specref.org/?q=dcat"

I hadn't stumbled across that bit of "hidden knowledge" :)