RE: Geographic metadata in Spatial Data on the Web Best Practices

OK for me

Best regards
Neil McNaughton - @neilmcn<http://www.twitter.com/neilmcn>
Editor and Publisher, Oil IT Journal
Now in its 22nd  year! - Sign up for our free headlines<mailto:headlines@oilit.com?subject=Oil%20IT%20Journal%20Headlines%20Please> service*.
Oil IT Journal is published by The Data Room SARL
7 Rue des Verrieres
92310 Sevres, France
Cell - +336 7271 2642
Tel - +331 4623 9596
info@oilit.com<mailto:info@oilit.com>/http://www.oilit.com<http://www.oilit.com/>
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/neil-mcnaughton/6/498/243>

* Around 10 email updates /year and we do not share your details with third parties.



From: Ed Parsons [mailto:eparsons@google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 3:17 PM
To: Neil McNaughton <neilmcn@oilit.com>; public-sdw-comments@w3.org
Subject: Re: Geographic metadata in Spatial Data on the Web Best Practices

Hello Neil,

I am working my way through the  public comments made to the Spatial Data on the Web working group prior to the release of final draft of the Best Practice Document, current version here https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-bp/


Hopefully you will notice a section that deals specifically with approaches to making metadata about spatial data including ISO 19115 compliant metadata more accessible - there is more work to do in this section before the final draft, but you very valid point about the value of existing metadata records has been taken onboard.

https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-bp/#bp-metadata


Would you allow me to therefore  mark this comment as closed ?

Many thanks for your contribution.

Ed
Co-Chair W3C/OGC Spatial Data on the Web Working Group

On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 at 21:45 Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au<mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au>> wrote:
Another perspective - spatial data on the web - in any form - requires rich and flexible metadata to make it discoverable, invokable and interpretable - and a "semantic web" is really the only candidate for interoperable, canonical forms of this metadata.I say this because there are already some useful components available for re-use - and the meta-model supports the key multi-inheritance patterns we will care about when describing resource behaviours from multiple user perspectives.

Linked Data provides a minimalist approach to this - linking using dereferencerable URIs it can be implemented agnostically of the encoding - HTML, RDF/XML, RDF-TTL, JSON-LD etc. IMHO it allows an incremental development of interoperability without needing to finalise a single shared information model.

If we choose the Web - then we are also really choosing URI based vocabularies for key concepts - and the question is what are the minimal set of concepts we need to define to support some specific level of interoperability between these notional metadata graphs. IMHO the business of making the data itself interoperable is handled elsewhere by defining domain models and encodings - and these may or may not involve RDF - so the critical part of the SDW scope really is all about discovery and linking.

That said, there is also a part about defining vocubularies for spatio/temporal concepts - and these should naturally be common across the data and metadata - so a semweb-oriented approach to these is a short-term enabler - but doesnt necessarily mean that SDW needs to proscribe data as RDF as the only way forward.

Rob Atkinson


On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 at 23:14 Erik Wilde <erik.wilde@dret.net<mailto:erik.wilde@dret.net>> wrote:
hello neil.

On 2016-03-07 10:02, Neil McNaughton wrote:
> /Another comment – there is no mention of the semantic web. Has this to
> all intents and purposes been replaced by “Linked Data?” Is this just a
> buzzword swap or has something more substantial happened? I ask because
> the ‘payload’ of the /Spatial Data on the Web Best Practices document
> appears to be relations mapped in “OWL, SKOS, RDFS” which to the casual
> observer sounds like the semantic web.//

yes, "linked data" is a rebranding of "semantic web", plus a few
additional constraints (most importantly: "use dereferencable HTTP URIs
for everything").

fyi, there have been discussions on whether SDW should be RDF-centric or
not. some (including myself) have argued that "the web" is much wider
than the "semantic web", and that the draft in its current form should
either be titled "spatial data on the semantic web", or should be
changed to be agnostic of a specific metamodel and simply recommend
patterns and best practices derived from web architecture.

to this end, http://dret.github.io/webdata/ is something that could
serve as a foundation or starting point: it talks about the principles
of web architecture without mandating one specific metamodel. it's
basically "linked data minus requiring RDF".

this issue of "the current BP draft is for semweb users only" has been
raised before. it remains to be seen which path the WG and the spec are
going to take.

cheers,

dret.

--
erik wilde | mailto:erik.wilde@dret.net<mailto:erik.wilde@dret.net> |
            | http://dret.net/netdret    |
            | http://twitter.com/dret    |
--

Ed Parsons FRGS
Geospatial Technologist, Google

+44 7825 382263 @edparsons
www.edparsons.com<http://www.edparsons.com/>