- From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
- Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 11:31:51 -0700
- To: <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <55C25697.6020608@ucsb.edu>
Personally, I would be careful about the back-linking as this has many implications on LinkedData as an infrastructure. Where would such back links be stored, can I filter them by source, etc? Best, Krzysztof On 08/05/2015 08:32 AM, Joshua Lieberman wrote: > We are having to deal with some confusion over spatial specialness > because many important capabilities for spatial data also have > conceivable usefulness for other data. The difference is often one of > centrality. Spatial data “always” deals with features, the basis of > defining what the data represents. It is usually valuable and often > essential for working with distributed spatial data to be able to > identify where features and/or geometries are being shared, e.g. links > to all the data that characterize not just more or less the same > location but the same feature such as a hill or an aquifer. The > reference back to a shared feature or perhaps a shared observation > concerning a feature is an important constraint on the relationships > between forward-linked data elements as well as their mutual validity. > For example, suppose there exist 5 datasets describing the bus > arrivals for the same bus stop. It would raise questions if those > times did not agree. We would only know that by being able to find > multiple arrival datasets linked from the bus stop feature. Links are > needed both from and to related data in some fashion in order to > enable “crawlability" as well as to answer both directional questions, > i.e. what data was this data derived from (provenance) and what other > data is making use of this data (usage). > > > It is conceivable that someone might want to follow all the links to > data that show a temperature of “9” or a color of “blue” but those are > arguably not central to use of distributed data in general. While > there are some other capabilities that should be considered general > data-on-the-web issues, It makes sense to me in this case for the > SDWWG to take the lead in recommending this capability and let others > then look at generalizing this to non-spatial data. > > Josh > > Joshua Lieberman, Ph.D. > Principal > Tumbling Walls > jlieberman*tumblingwalls.com <http://tumblingwalls.com> > +1 617 431 6431 > >> On Aug 5, 2015, at 11:06 AM, Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com >> <mailto:bill@swirrl.com>> wrote: >> >> I don't have a strong feeling about this and agree it is a more >> general problem than just spatial. We could perhaps identify a good >> solution, perhaps one from another domain, and list this in our best >> practices. Maybe the data on the web group has something to say on >> the issue? >> >> >> >> On 5 Aug 2015, at 15:53, Kerry Taylor <Kerry.Taylor@acm.org >> <mailto:Kerry.Taylor@acm.org>> wrote: >> >>> frans, >>> I suppose because the "linking", including "backlinks" , is a major( >>> the major?) reason for our existence....and a serious missing >>> element in existing standards for spatial data publishing/ >>> consuming. Does that argument stand up? >>> Kerry >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6 Aug 2015, at 12:38 am, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl >>> <mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2015-08-05 16:08 GMT+02:00 Kerry Taylor <Kerry.Taylor@acm.org >>>> <mailto:Kerry.Taylor@acm.org>>: >>>> >>>> Bill, >>>> This seems to me to be a use case we need, that is kind-of >>>> there in a few use cases but not so explicit as you have >>>> described it here ( although you have included some solution >>>> suggestions). Can you put it on the use case page on the wiki >>>> as a starting point to processing it further? >>>> @Frans, @Alejandro, would that be appropriate? >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, I think it would. >>>> >>>> >>>> This is not really specific to "spatial" linking but I do think >>>> it is something we should specifically address nevertheless... >>>> >>>> >>>> That was my initial thought too: backlinking is an understandable >>>> requirement, but I don't see how it fits within our scope. Why do >>>> you think we should address it nevertheless? It would be nice if we >>>> can discover the spatialness of the matter. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Frans >>>> >>>> >>>> Kerry >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5 Aug 2015, at 10:32 pm, Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com >>>> <mailto:bill@swirrl.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all >>>>> >>>>> In last week's call I mentioned a use case for 'back links' to >>>>> places - the question of what resources are linked to my >>>>> location of interest, or in RDF terminology, which triples >>>>> exist with my location as the object. Something that comes up >>>>> frequently in our work for local government is 'area profiles' >>>>> - selecting and presenting data about a place. The data >>>>> typically covers topics like demographics, health, economy, >>>>> environment etc. and in our work is usually represented as >>>>> statistical data in linked data form, using the RDF Data Cube >>>>> vocabulary. The RDF links generally go from an 'observation' >>>>> to the place. >>>>> >>>>> The area profile usually this incorporates some kind of simple >>>>> map of the place, plus simple charts of selected data. See >>>>> http://profiles.hampshirehub.net/profiles/E06000045 for an example >>>>> >>>>> This is straightforward in principle if all the available data >>>>> is in a single database - you can retrieve the things you want >>>>> by SPARQL query. A more general and challenging problem is to >>>>> answer a user question along the lines of 'what data is >>>>> available about location X' drawing from distributed data >>>>> sources. A practical solution to that would generally involve >>>>> some manual discovery and integration - becoming aware through >>>>> various means of the existence of a relevant data collection >>>>> (by web search, or personal recommendation, or social media or >>>>> whatever), deciding if it holds info about a place then adding >>>>> it to a list of services that could be queried to pull back >>>>> the data. >>>>> >>>>> Sometimes this could be more complicated if we are interested >>>>> not only in data that links directly to our place identifier, >>>>> but to related identifiers (other names for same thing, a >>>>> sub-area or super-area of the place in question etc). >>>>> >>>>> The challenge in question is one of discovery. The most >>>>> practical solution might be 'just google it' (having allowed >>>>> search engines to crawl the data collections). Perhaps more >>>>> targeted indexes for specific domains of interest could meet >>>>> the same need with less noise. Querying metadata of data >>>>> catalogues might be another option. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> >>>>> Bill >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Frans Knibbe >>>> Geodan >>>> President Kennedylaan 1 >>>> 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL) >>>> >>>> T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347 >>>> E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl <mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> >>>> www.geodan.nl <http://www.geodan.nl/> >>>> disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer> >>>> > -- Krzysztof Janowicz Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara 4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060 Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/ Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2015 18:32:27 UTC