Re: adding hypermedia to spatial data best practices

Hi,

have a look at [1], which publishes the "GADM database of Global
Administrative Areas" [2] as Linked Data, and also tries to take
into account hypermedia.  We have links between Features (e.g.,
from Germany to Baden-Wuertemberg to Karlsruhe), and have APIs for
RCC8 relations.  We have external links to GADM from DBpedia [3]
and LinkedGeoData.org (which links to the APIs via URI templates).

I still have to add rdfs:subClassOf/rdfs:subPropertyOf statements
to other vocabularies to demonstrate how to provide links on the
schema/vocabulary level.

Best regards,
Andreas.

[1] http://gadm.geovocab.org/
[2] http://gadm.org/
[3] http://downloads.dbpedia.org/2015-04/links/gadm_links.nt.bz2

On 2015-08-13 02:43, Rob Atkinson wrote:
> Thats my line of thinking
> - so it comes down to understanding what types of  objects and relations
> we need to work with typical spatial data cases (without assuming a
> single monolithic data model) and working out the best way to :
> a) publish them (governance canonical formats and APIs)
> b)  discover them
>
> IMHO this is why we need the intersection of W3C and OGC - OGC
> represents a problem domain seeking general solutions so it can do its
> spatial parts effectively. W3C is the place such concerns need to be
> addressed - and spatial cases are intrinsically multi-dimensional and
> have pushed the W3C into poorly charted territory.
>
> PS - At this stage no one has identified where any of the existing Use
> Cases represent a duplicate or conflicting set of requirements.  I think
> there is another one lurking here for the basic problem of sharing a
> mapping between two ontologies - in the hydrology domain its a prime
> concern to be able to describe how two different data sources relate to
> the same concept in spite of different vocabularies in use. Again - this
> is not spatial - but its an unavoidable pattern in spatial data and not
> apparently well supported by a general solution.
>
>
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 at 10:04 Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu
> <mailto:dret@berkeley.edu>> wrote:
>
>     hello rob.
>
>     On 2015-08-07 18:41, Rob Atkinson wrote:
>      >  From the perspective of someone trying to put spatial data on
>     the web,
>      > it is largely general issues that are the problem, rather than the
>      > spatial aspects. So i think the focus on distilling a set of best
>      > practices for the spatial cases is a sensible start.
>
>     yes, i very much second that. since there seems to be parallel work on
>     "data on the web" and "spatial data on the web", it would be odd to
>     replicate anything that's not specifically spatial in nature.
>
>     now, some things may be interesting to mention. for example, when we did
>     the "tiled feeds" work, we introduced spatial links that would allow
>     clients to do the equivalent of UI interactions with web-based maps
>     (zoom in/out, 2d-pan). we never got around to properly register these
>     link relations, so maybe that would actually be something to look at for
>     the spatial data group as some spatial groundwork that can serve as a
>     starting point for all kinds of data.
>
>      > What we get with spatial data is a need to make all the moving parts
>      > work in concert.. we have issues of identification,  dimensionality,
>      > data models, distributed governance (AAA), data volumes, trust, API
>      > design and encoding at every juncture in addition to pure spatial
>     concerns.
>
>     but as you say, mostly these are general data/service concerns and
>     almost always are orthogonal to spatial issues, right?
>
>     cheers,
>
>     dret.
>
>     --
>     erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu <mailto:dret@berkeley.edu>  -
>     tel:+1-510-2061079 |
>                  | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
>                  | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |
>

Received on Thursday, 13 August 2015 10:48:59 UTC