Part 2 Review

[samadammeek]

Part 2: Geospatial Data Review

Few comments:

1. Page 24 has an Important box, should it be removed?
2. Page 30 Remove or address the highlighted "TODO"
3. Page 33 Remove or address the highlighted "TODO"
4. Page 33 Attribution - "typically shown at the bottom of the map." - whilst this is probably true, it is a design decision. Consider removing it to give the document longevity.

[jerstlouis]

Thank you for the review @samadammeek !

1. Page 24 has an Important box, should it be removed?

This is the Important box saying:

Editors of OGC API standards should carefully avoid redefining different resources with the same path in different OGC API standards.

We included this on purpose, as that is something important. While this Common - Part 2 Standard defines conformance classes which implementations can conform to, in addition to developers, the target audience is also editors of new OGC API data access standards which we hope ensure compatibility with Common - Part 2, so that implementations can conform to both Common and any OGC API Standard at the same time.

2. Page 30 Remove or address the highlighted "TODO"
3. Page 33 Remove or address the highlighted "TODO"

These TODOs were intended as reminders for OGC staff to update the paths to the schemas for the final publication of the document. However, if that's already a given and included the automatic TODO action items of OGC staff working on the publication, we could potentially remove these TODOs so that the document looks more mature for the open comment period.

4. Page 33 Attribution - "typically shown at the bottom of the map." - whilst this is probably true, it is a design decision. Consider removing it to give the document longevity.

The purpose of that sentence was to provide an example to the reader of how that attribution property could be used by clients, distinguishing it from other similar/related properties like license, accessConstraints, rights and publisher. It is not in any way saying that clients needs to display the attribution at a specific place. Could we rephrase this somehow to address your concern while keeping the intent? often shown at the bottom of the map is not much better, is it?

Thanks again!

[jerstlouis]

We've commented out the TODOs so that they do not show in the generated HTML / PDF, and we have change the attribution text to say:

A collection description can include an attribution property allowing clients to display a short attribution for data being visualized.
For example, this is often shown at the bottom of a map in a 2D interface.