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

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?

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
> ________________________________



-- 
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 Monday, 30 June 2014 09:10:28 UTC