RE: Data Quality Vocab for SDW

Noting also that in the latest version of ISO 19115 (ISO 19115-1:2014) the spatial resolution of a dataset can also be expressed as a vertical distance, an angular distance (gco:Angle), or as levelOfDetail (gco:CharacterString), in addition to the previous options of distance (=horizontal ground distance) or equivalent scale.

Cheers,
Rachel

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrea Perego [mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu]
Sent: 09 March 2016 10:23
To: Antoine Isaac
Cc: Phil Archer; Linda van den Brink; Riccardo Albertoni; 'public-sdw-comments@w3.org'
Subject: Re: Data Quality Vocab for SDW

Hi, Antoine.

I can contribute a use case concerning geospatial metadata.

One of the information that is typically included concerns the spatial resolution of a dataset. This is expressed either by a distance - e.g., data have a 1km resolution - or with an equivalent scale (i.e., a
fraction) - e.g., 1:1,000,000.

I include below two XML code snippets to show how this is expressed in ISO 19115:


Spatial resolution as distance (1,000 m):

<gmd:spatialResolution>
   <gmd:MD_Resolution>
     <gmd:distance>
       <gco:Distance
uom="http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/ISO_19139_Schemas/resources/uom/ML_gmxUom.xml#m">1000</gco:Distance>
     </gmd:distance>
   </gmd:MD_Resolution>
</gmd:spatialResolution>



Spatial resolution as equivalent scale (1:1,000,000):

<gmd:spatialResolution>
   <gmd:MD_Resolution>
     <gmd:equivalentScale>
       <gmd:MD_RepresentativeFraction>
         <gmd:denominator>
           <gco:Integer>1000000</gco:Integer>
         </gmd:denominator>
       </gmd:MD_RepresentativeFraction>
     </gmd:equivalentScale>
   </gmd:MD_Resolution>
</gmd:spatialResolution>


Property dct:conformsTo (or a specific subproperty to be defined) can be
used to specify the spatial resolution of a dataset / distribution, but
three things are missing:

1. How to model the notion itself of (spatial) resolution.

2. How to express in RDF quantity values (e.g., 1m, 2km, 3s, 4h, 5l) and
fractions.

3. How to glue #1 and #2

Actually, solutions exist to address point #2 - as the QUDT vocabulary
[1] mentioned during our first joint call [2]. But, to the best of my
knowledge, there's currently no best practice on how to use them.

This situation is also the reason why in GeoDCAT-AP the decision taken
was to dump spatial resolution into a free-text field - a provisional
"mapping" meant to be replaced in the future with a more appropriate
approach.


So, looking at DQV, I wonder whether dqv:QualityMeasure (and the related
properties and classes) are generic enough to model also this
information. E.g. (just trying):


a:Dataset dqv:hasQualityMeasure [ a dqv:QualityMeasure ;
   dqv:hasMetric :spatialResolutionAsEquivalentScale ;
   dqv:value "0.000001"^^xsd:decimal ] .


another:Dataset dqv:hasQualityMeasure [ a dqv:QualityMeasure ;
   dqv:hasMetric :spatialResolutionAsDistanceInMetres ;
   dqv:value "1000"^^xsd:decimal ] .


Not sure this is correct. In particular, it is unclear to me whether
this is the correct way (in DQV) of modelling the notions of resolution,
distance / equivalent scale, and units of measurement. In the examples
above, they are all merged together in one instance of dqv:Metric -
which, besides resulting in a strange N-headed beast (formally
speaking), is not scalable.


A final (general) note:

In my understanding, spatial (as well as temporal) resolution can be
considered as a specific type of data granularity. From this
perspective, and in order to ensure consistency and interoperability, it
would be desirable to have a DQV-based approach to model the general
notion of granularity, that could then be used as a basis for specific
types (as spatial / temporal resolution).


Cheers,

Andrea

----
[1]http://www.qudt.org/
[2]https://www.w3.org/2016/02/17-sdw-minutes


On 07/03/2016 08:08, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> 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
>>
>

--
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific / Technical Project Officer
European Commission DG JRC
Institute for Environment & Sustainability
Unit H06 - Digital Earth & Reference Data
Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
21027 Ispra VA, Italy

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

________________________________
 This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
________________________________

Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2016 13:38:53 UTC