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

Thanks a lot, Frans.

My comments inline.

> [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

Received on Friday, 23 May 2014 22:46:55 UTC