W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > August 2010

Re: Little Maps of the US

From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <406549.24250.qm@web112601.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
To: Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com>
Cc: public-egov-ig@w3.org
This relates to (sort of):
ISSUE-43 (abstract_dataset): attach specific properties to dcat:Distribution and not to dcat:Dataset [dcat]

although that is a more general case.

Two Mash-Ups of weather on geography, one for today and one for yesterday would be two dcat:Distribution or manifestations.  The common properties between the distributions would only be the geo properties which are fixed in time.  You could still figure out (where it rained|snowed|etc.)[Dataset] and (when)[Distribution date property].  This is the normal thing you do when designing a Data Base, but it's not always so obvious what is best.  If you wanted to get a list of noon day temperatures at a place for a year, another design (without the required 365 dcat:Distribution(s)) might be better.

There are always going to be query optimizations, but putting the meta properties in one place (attached to Distribution) is a best practice, I think.  Make sense ?   

--- On Thu, 8/26/10, Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Little Maps of the US
To: "Gannon Dick" <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
Cc: public-egov-ig@w3.org
Date: Thursday, August 26, 2010, 8:49 PM

Gannon: "IMHO, the RDFa meta data should not include the 'Weather' parameters themselves."
 Why not?
Michael A. Norton 

From: Gannon Dick
 <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
To: Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com>
Cc: public-egov-ig@w3.org
Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 1:11:50 PM
Subject: Re: Little Maps of the US


--- On Wed, 8/25/10, Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is this anywhere near the kind of data NWS utilizes in mapping meteorological data?

Yes, as a matter of fact ...

But let me back up just a little: The "Little Maps" are a grid point subset.  The meta data is assumed constant, and it changes so slowly that that assumption is valid.  Weather observations and Forecasts are a time dependent Mash-Up. This topic is a huge subject of controversy at the moment, because a person's location is a similar type of Mash-Up. This debate runs counter to the Scientific Method since there is no reason to believe that observations are reproducible and computable with sound semantic principles.  This sort of thinking will get us both burned at the stake in Advertising Departments, Mr. Norton :o)  

The NWS has a beta
 test of XML available, as well as some XSL transforms (which I have not had a good look at).  It would not be too difficult to add a Weather link to the "Little Map".  IMHO, the RDFa meta data should not include the "Weather" parameters themselves.

<http://www.weather.gov/alerts-beta/>


-- Gannon





      


      






      


      
Received on Friday, 27 August 2010 03:54:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 August 2010 03:54:35 GMT