- From: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
- Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 10:38:19 +0200
- To: Kerry Taylor <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>
- Cc: Peter Baumann <p.baumann@jacobs-university.de>, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>, SDW WG <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Hi, Kerry. On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 9:15 AM, <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au> wrote: > Andrea, Peter, > > I think Peter's "format" comment is closer to the mark-- I cannot see that > we will have any influence at all on the "must" be in multiple formats. Making data available in multiple formats is already a common practice on the Web, and it is included in the DWBP WG BP document: http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#MultipleFormats We just have to ensure that this is adopted for spatial data. IMO, this is a key feature needed to enable wider re-use of spatial data. Actually, we already have a (limited) number of examples, like PlaceTime.com (http://vocab.org/placetime/) for time and geometries, Spatial Reference and EPSG.io for reference systems. This practice should be promoted and improved (e.g., by adding support to other formats). > On the temporal aspect: this is indeed a matter of importance for the group, > but is largely dealt with as owltime requirements, not best practices > requirements, because we have a clear technical deliverable in that area. We > do need to make sure our time approach is well articulated to our best > practices for spatial, though. > > Please check the owltime requirements, and then please let us know if that > does not catch the spatio- temporal adequately. Thanks, Kerry. I'll check that. Cheers, Andrea
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2015 08:39:04 UTC