Re: LOCN extension for dataset metadata (Re: A real world example: Dutch registry of buildings and addresses)

Hi, Frans.

Yes, you're right. Things like CRSs and spatial resolution may be too
specific for the vocabularies the DWBP WG is working on. So, I'm not
sure they will be included or not. Also, the Spatial Data on the Web
(GWD) WG may be addressing these issues.

Said that, I think that it would be important to contribute anyway
requirements for geospatial data. They concern also less specific
properties, like spatial / temporal coverage, and, as far as spatial /
temporal resolution is concerned, this includes how to specify units
of measure (which is again something not specific to geospatial data).
Morever, in another draft of the DWBP WG [1], there's a section
concerning the classification of metadata [2], where temporal and
spatial granularity (~resolution) are explicitly mentioned.

Thanks a lot for your proposal to start drafting extensions to LOCN. I
would be happy to help. And, Frans, I would like to propose you take
the lead of this work as a co-chair of the LOCADD CG. I'm sure all our
colleagues support this proposal, and this way we'll be able to better
coordinate our work.

Meanwhile, I'll try to consolidate what we already have. I will also
make a contact with the DWBP WG in the next few days.

I wish you all the best for your holidays, Frans!

Cheers,

Andrea

----
[1]http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Guidance_on_the_Provision_of_Metadata
[2]http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Guidance_on_the_Provision_of_Metadata#Intrinsic_vs_Extrinsic_Metadata

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Frans Knibbe | Geodan
<frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
> On 2014-06-30 11:09, Andrea Perego wrote:
>
> Frans, all,
>
> I guess you are aware that, on June, 5th, the DWBP WG published a
> draft on use cases and requirements:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/
>
> Since DWBP deliverables include vocabularies concerning data quality,
> granularity and usage, this would be the right place where to
> contribute requirements for geospatial datasets.
>
> Probably, the best thing to do is to consolidate page "LOCN extension:
> Metadata" - which might be better renamed as "Use cases and
> requirements for geospatial metadata":
>
> https://www.w3.org/community/locadd/wiki/LOCN_extension:_Metadata
>
> WDYT?
>
>
> I wasn't aware of the document yet, so thanks for pointing it out.
>
> Do you think there is a good chance that the DWBP initiative will come up
> with a vocabulary that includes things like Coordinate Reference System and
> spatial resolution? Those are concepts that may be too specific to make it
> to general vocabularies. I guess it comes down to scope. Are properties like
> Coordinate Reference System and spatial resolution more in scope of LOCN or
> DWBP? LOCN is about individual things (places) rather than datasets
> (collections of places), but I think that properties like Coordinate
> Reference System and spatial resolution could be applied on both levels.
>
> Perhaps it is a good idea to start making some solid proposals for
> extensions of LOCN? It could be that just trying to define the necessary
> properties will help in determining which vocabulary they could best be part
> of.  I could give it a try, after I get back from my four week vacation. If
> I have done things right this list won't receive automatic out-of-office
> messages when I am away, so this way you will know that I am not being rude
> when I don't respond to e-mail for a while.
>
> Regards,
> Frans
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andrea
>
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Frans Knibbe | Geodan
> <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
>
> On 2014-05-24 0:46, Andrea Perego wrote:
>
> Thanks a lot, Frans.
>
> My comments inline.
>
> Great. It seems we are in agreement. On with the work then...
>
> Regards,
> Frans
>
>
>
> [snip]
>
> @Frans, I wonder whether you would be interested in being the editor
> and coordinator for work on this extension.
>
> Yes, I will give it a try.  I have just added two pieces to the page, to
> show my dedication :-)
>
> It also made me think: Is this really about an extension of LOCN? I would
> think it is more about finding best practices for expressing metadata that
> are specific to spatial datasets. Perhaps it is possible to do that without
> any extension of the LOCN vocabulary. And perhaps it is not, like the case
> of specification of the CRS. But if the LOCN vocabulary were to be extended
> with something to denote a CRS, would that extension need to be only for
> metadata?
>
> I share your concerns, Frans. And, actually, the reason why I proposed
> this extension is to investigate this topic, with to proposed best
> practices, whenever possible, and to highlight open issues. This would
> also help understand whether this work should be or not in scope with
> the LOCN voc and/or the LOCADD CG. If this is not the case, we can
> contribute our conclusions to the relevant W3C groups.
>
> Also, I don't think that this "extension" should necessarily require a
> specific/different way to specify, e.g., geometries and CRSs. Rather,
> it can simply re-use other specifications (e.g., possible LOCN
> extensions about geometry, geographical names, etc.) or recommend best
> practices for their re-use, in case specific requirements for metadata
> are identified.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andrea
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Frans Knibbe
> Geodan
> President Kennedylaan 1
> 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)
>
> T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
> E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
> www.geodan.nl | disclaimer
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Frans Knibbe
> Geodan
> President Kennedylaan 1
> 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)
>
> T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
> E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
> www.geodan.nl | disclaimer
> ________________________________



-- 
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
European Commission DG JRC
Institute for Environment & Sustainability
Unit H06 - Digital Earth & Reference Data
Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
21027 Ispra VA, Italy

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

----
The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
position of the European Commission.

Received on Friday, 4 July 2014 07:28:44 UTC