Fwd: Geo Data on the Web WG charter

Forwarded for archive and discussion


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Geo Data on the Web WG charter
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 10:30:04 +0000
From: Tandy, Jeremy <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>
To: Little, Chris, Edwards, Ian, Phil Archer, Simon Cox, Bart De 
Lathouwer, Denise McKenzie

All -

(& hopefully in time for the OGC TC meeting starting tomorrow, which 
sadly I am not attending)

The [Geo Data on the Web WG charter][1] looks to be making great 
progress. I've cross referenced the [deliverables][2] with the notes 
from the [barcamp session @ LGD][3] and in doing so, a few thoughts 
spring to mind about the "Geo Data on the Web Best Practices" section:

i) We should seek to use the [(draft) ISO 19150-2 rules for developing 
ontologies][4] to create a canonical mapping of ISO 19107 to OWL - then 
we can establish formal axioms to between "iso19107.owl" (!) and those 
geospatial ontologies in common usage. In doing this, it is likely that 
some of the commonly used ontologies will be found to have insufficient 
coverage of ISO 19107, which might help us make a decision regarding the 
which ontologies to promote.
ii) I think we will also need to formally describe how the OGC & 
ISO/TC211 "General Feature Model" (the metamodel underpinning all the 
ISO/TC211 Abstract Specifications) maps to OWL; effectively turning the 
General Feature Model into an "upper level ontology". This seems to be a 
pre-requisite for any work to establish links between ISO/TC211 Abstract 
Specifications and the webby-world (Miss Globe?).
iii) Coordinate Reference Systems (CRS) are not mentioned explicitly ... 
and these always turn out to be thorny issues. I'm not sure whether a 
formal ontology needs to be established for describing CRS, or whether 
we can take advantage of, say, the [Well-Known-Text (WKT) definitions 
for CRS, OGC#12-063r2][5] to provide string literals for this. If we do 
need a formal ontology, then mapping from [ISO 19111 spatial referencing 
by coordinates][6] seems like a good place to start.
iv) Linear referencing is a topic of interest (especially for people 
dealing with networks such as transport systems or hydrography/rivers). 
So that we don't "boil the ocean", we should make a decision about 
whether this is in or out of scope. (would suggest "out" with a nod to 
follow on activity).

Also, regarding the "Semantic Sensor Network Vocabulary" section:
v) I would like to see a formal reference to inclusion of the "Sampling 
Feature" model (from [ISO 19156 Observations and Measurements][7]) as 
this very useful element is not currently present in SSN.
vi) I think we need to formalise (or at least agree) how SSN relates to 
ISO 19156; presently SSN is derived from the [DOLCE Ultra-Light (DUL) 
ontology][8] which makes for a few inconsistencies and mismatches which 
can probably just be "smoothed over" but the community needs to agree to 
do so!

Other than those points, I think the draft charter is addressing the 
right concerns (geojson[-ld], geospatial best practices, time, SSN, 
coverages).

It's quite a mountain of work, but "there's gold in them there hills".

As AC rep for Met Office @ W3C, I am happy to support the Charter 
through the W3C vote.

Jeremy



[1]: http://www.w3.org/2014/05/geo-charter
[2]: http://www.w3.org/2014/05/geo-charter#deliverables
[3]: http://www.w3.org/2014/03/06-lgd-minutes.html
[4]: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=57466
[5]: https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=54797
[6]: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=41126
[7]: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=32574
[8]: http://www.loa.istc.cnr.it/ontologies/DUL.owl

Received on Monday, 9 June 2014 11:00:08 UTC