Re: UCR ISSUE-31: is the validation requirement in scope?

Hello,

So far Chris's response has been the only one. If I may paraphrase, he says
that validation of spatial data is not a general data validation issue, but
requires specialist (spatial) knowledge. That could be viewed as the
justification of the validation requirement
<http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#Validation>
.

So if we leave the requirement as it is ("It should be possible to validate
spatial data on the Web; to automatically detect conflicts with standards
or definitions.") and add a NOTE to justify its inclusion, would that be
acceptable and a good resolution of ISSUE-31
<https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/31>?

The NOTE could say "Although data validation is a general topic, this
requirement is included because validation of spatial data requires
specialist spatial techniques."

Regards,
Frans





On 23 August 2016 at 20:13, Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
wrote:

> Frans,
>
>
>
> I think spatial data is a slightly special case – but so are other data
> domains being used by ‘naïve’ users.
>
>
>
> If the data points to a location that appears precise (and therefore
> potentially accurate) but is not because of an inappropriate datum or CRS,
> the consumer may want to check that the location is accurate enough, but
> not have enough knowledge to do it themselves.
>
>
>
> This is quite ubiquitous.
>
>
>
> I suppose examples from other domains could be:
>
> 1.       Requesting a music track of ‘Sway’ and expecting Dean Martin,
> but actually getting the Mucho Mambo version – technically ‘Sway’ but not
> what is expected – but rather obvious to many consumers, though perhaps not
> to someone from the far East. Easily fixed with a bit of metadata
> (“original recording”).
>
> 2.       Searching for medical information. This may be akin to spatial –
> difficult, complex and a second opinion may be required.
>
>
>
> Fixing/validating locations can be highly technical, specialized and
> perhaps difficult. Is this enough to justify inclusion?
>
>
>
> HTH, Chris
>
>
>
> *From:* Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2016 4:03 PM
> *To:* SDW WG Public List
> *Subject:* UCR ISSUE-31: is the validation requirment in scope?
>
>
>
> Yes, it's the official issue-31
> <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/31> thread!
>
> I am sorry it took a while, but it is here now, and with this thread we
> should be able to quickly resolve the issue.
>
>
>
> It is about the existing Validation requirement
> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#Validation>
> (if the link drops you in the wrong place, you can use the table of
> contents). The BP team fairly wondered if this requirement is in scope.
> After all, the need to validate data on the web could well exist for
> non-spatial data.
>
>
>
> Would it be possible to give an example of why validating spatial data
> could be a special case, thereby justifying the inclusion of this
> requirement?
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Frans
>
>
>