- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 08:08:02 +0100
- To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, Riccardo Albertoni <albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>
- CC: "'public-sdw-comments@w3.org'" <public-sdw-comments@w3.org>
Dear Phil, Linda, Thanks a lot for this. This is in fact quite an important requirement; I've flagged it as an issue at https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/243 It may however take some time to come back to you, as we still have many issues. Actually we had granularity in scope, when we started with DQV. But this was downplayed as the DWBP requirements were very vague then. Do you have some precise examples from SDW, i.e. showing what data would look like, and its problems? Best, Antoine On 3/3/16 10:46 AM, Phil Archer wrote: > Antoine, Riccardo, > > As Antoine will recall, the Spatial Data WG, here represented by Linda, has a particular interest in the DQV. An issue that comes up a lot in spatial datasets is that of precision and accuracy (the fact that Magna Carta was signed in 1215 is accurate, just not very precise, saying it was signed at 1215-06-15T00:00:00 is precise but inaccurate). It occurs in general datasets too but it's particularly acute for spatial. > > On last night's SDW call, I was asked to put you in touch with linda specifically to talk about this, in particular, how you might express these ideas in the DQV? > > > Process note: I'm archiving this in the SDW's public comment list to avoid having to sign you all up to yet another mailing list. > > For tracker this is ACTION-149 >
Received on Monday, 7 March 2016 07:08:44 UTC