W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-locadd@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Last telecon: discussion about use cases

From: Frans Knibbe | Geodan <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:16:05 +0100
Message-ID: <51220D75.2030105@geodan.nl>
To: public-locadd@w3.org
Hello,

Yes, I think I can propose one or two use cases. I will try to add 
something soon.

Frankly, I have only a very general use case in mind: Getting geospatial 
data to work on the WWW. And I see some worrying gaps in the current 
specifications for that. But I will try to word this use case in such a 
way that I hope it will be compatible with other use cases.

As for the place of use cases in the structure of the wiki: How about 
creating a separate page for each use case?  In general, it seems a good 
idea to me to make separate pages for separate things. That should give 
us a nice amount of freedom in interlinking those pages and creating 
summary pages or tables of content. With this approach we could also 
postpone having to have an obligatory format for use cases.

The same could go for the specifications we like to describe or 
evaluate: they could be on separate pages too.

Greetings,
Frans




On 16-2-2013 23:43, Andrea Perego wrote:
> Feroz, Ghislain,
>
> Since the CG has not yet taken any decision on use cases, our proposal
> is to leave any member free to add his/her own, after having sent a
> summary to the CG. Of course, before proposing a separate use case, it
> is important to consider the possibility of merging it with existing
> and possibly overlapping use cases, whenever appropriate.
>
> Unless the CG disagrees with this approach, we would then give Feroz
> the green light to add the PAT use case.
>
> @Frans, we also wonder whether you have a use case to propose. Some
> time ago, you raised an issue on the representation of SRS/CRSs in
> coordinate geometries.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andrea and Michael
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Feroz Farazi <farazi@disi.unitn.it> wrote:
>> Hi Ghislain,
>>
>>>   - why did you choose geontology:polyline instead of sf:MultiSurface [1]
>> combine with some serializations from geosparql onto of OGC [2] ?
>>
>> sf:MultiSurface [1] is relatively new and it seems to me that it was issued
>> (2012-09-11) some months later than we submitted our paper.
>>
>>>   - Or event one could ask why didn't you provide any serialization of the
>> data ?
>>
>> We will make our data available through CKAN, however, we have used RDF for
>> serialization and the data publishing work is still in progress.
>>
>>>   - or why did you choose WGS84 datum for your data?
>> Because the PAT delivered us coordinates in WGS84 decimal format.
>>
>>> PS: Btw, an access to your ontology
>>> (http://www.territorio.provincia.tn.it/geodati/ontology/)
>> As I said before data publishing is underway. Along with the data we will
>> publish the ontology too.
>>
>> Thank you for your questions.
>>
>> Feroz.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ghislain Atemezing [mailto:auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:12 AM
>> To: Feroz Farazi
>> Cc: 'LocAdd W3C CG Public Mailing list'; Enzo Maltese; atemezin
>> Subject: Re: Last telecon: discussion about use cases
>>
>> Hi Feroz,
>> Thanks for the pointer.. I guess we should agree about what to put in the
>> use-cases section. And as Phil stated last time, we have already an urgent
>> one linking with the ORG ontology.
>>> In [1] particularly in section
>>> 4.2 we described that conversion of the PAT (Autonomous Province of
>>> Trento) geographic dataset into RDF necessitates the use of the
>>> vocabularies that provide terms such as point, polyline, polygon for
>>> encoding drinking water fountains, bicycle tracks and streams,
>>> respectively.
>> Re our paper, it is a real case of converting data from PAT. But here again,
>> one could as the following:
>>    - why did you choose geontology:polyline instead of sf:MultiSurface [1]
>> combine with some serializations from geosparql onto of OGC [2] ?
>>    - Or event one could ask why didn't you provide any serialization of the
>> data ?
>>    - or why did you choose WGS84 datum for your data?
>>
>> I guess answering such questions could help us define real cases, including
>> the cases where providers need to encode their data in other SRID.
>>
>> Please correct me if I am wrong.
>>
>> Best,
>> Ghislain
>> PS: Btw, an access to your ontology
>> (http://www.territorio.provincia.tn.it/geodati/ontology/) returns me a
>> 404 answer...I would be glad to add it in LOV dataset :-)
>>
>> [1] http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/details/vocabulary_sf.html
>> [2] http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/details/vocabulary_gsp.html
>> --
>> Ghislain Atemezing
>> EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department Campus SophiaTech 450, route
>> des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France.
>> e-mail: auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr & ghislain.atemezing@gmail.com
>> Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8178
>> Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
>> Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~atemezin
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
> European Commission DG JRC
> Institute for Environment & Sustainability
> Unit H06 - Digital Earth & Reference Data
> Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
> 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
>
> DE+RD Unit: http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/DE
>
> ----
> The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
> not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
> position of the European Commission.
>
Received on Monday, 18 February 2013 11:16:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 18 February 2013 11:16:41 GMT