Re: Geographic metadata in Spatial Data on the Web Best Practices

Thank you!

Ed

On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 at 15:32 Neil McNaughton <neilmcn@oilit.com> wrote:

> OK for me
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Neil McNaughton - @neilmcn <http://www.twitter.com/neilmcn>
>
> Editor and Publisher, Oil IT Journal
>
> Now in its 22nd  year! - Sign up for our free headlines
> <headlines@oilit.com?subject=Oil%20IT%20Journal%20Headlines%20Please>
> service*.
>
> Oil IT Journal is published by The Data Room SARL
>
> 7 Rue des Verrieres
>
> 92310 Sevres, France
>
> Cell - +336 7271 2642 <+33%206%2072%2071%2026%2042>
>
> Tel - +331 4623 9596 <+33%201%2046%2023%2095%2096>
>
> info@oilit.com/http://www.oilit.com
>
> [image: LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/neil-mcnaughton/6/498/243>
>
>
>
> ** Around 10 email updates /year and we do not share your details with
> third parties.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ed Parsons [mailto:eparsons@google.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 04, 2017 3:17 PM
> *To:* Neil McNaughton <neilmcn@oilit.com>; public-sdw-comments@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Geographic metadata in Spatial Data on the Web Best
> Practices
>
>
>
> Hello Neil,
>
>
>
> I am working my way through the  public comments made to the Spatial Data
> on the Web working group prior to the release of final draft of the Best
> Practice Document, current version here https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-bp/
>
>
>
> Hopefully you will notice a section that deals specifically with
> approaches to making metadata about spatial data including ISO 19115
> compliant metadata more accessible - there is more work to do in this
> section before the final draft, but you very valid point about the value of
> existing metadata records has been taken onboard.
>
>
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-bp/#bp-metadata
>
>
>
> Would you allow me to therefore  mark this comment as closed ?
>
>
>
> Many thanks for your contribution.
>
>
>
> Ed
>
> Co-Chair W3C/OGC Spatial Data on the Web Working Group
>
>
>
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 at 21:45 Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au> wrote:
>
> Another perspective - spatial data on the web - in any form - requires
> rich and flexible metadata to make it discoverable, invokable and
> interpretable - and a "semantic web" is really the only candidate for
> interoperable, canonical forms of this metadata.I say this because there
> are already some useful components available for re-use - and the
> meta-model supports the key multi-inheritance patterns we will care about
> when describing resource behaviours from multiple user perspectives.
>
>
>
> Linked Data provides a minimalist approach to this - linking using
> dereferencerable URIs it can be implemented agnostically of the encoding -
> HTML, RDF/XML, RDF-TTL, JSON-LD etc. IMHO it allows an incremental
> development of interoperability without needing to finalise a single shared
> information model.
>
>
>
> If we choose the Web - then we are also really choosing URI based
> vocabularies for key concepts - and the question is what are the minimal
> set of concepts we need to define to support some specific level of
> interoperability between these notional metadata graphs. IMHO the business
> of making the data itself interoperable is handled elsewhere by defining
> domain models and encodings - and these may or may not involve RDF - so the
> critical part of the SDW scope really is all about discovery and linking.
>
>
>
> That said, there is also a part about defining vocubularies for
> spatio/temporal concepts - and these should naturally be common across the
> data and metadata - so a semweb-oriented approach to these is a short-term
> enabler - but doesnt necessarily mean that SDW needs to proscribe data as
> RDF as the only way forward.
>
>
>
> Rob Atkinson
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 at 23:14 Erik Wilde <erik.wilde@dret.net> wrote:
>
> hello neil.
>
> On 2016-03-07 10:02, Neil McNaughton wrote:
> > /Another comment – there is no mention of the semantic web. Has this to
> > all intents and purposes been replaced by “Linked Data?” Is this just a
> > buzzword swap or has something more substantial happened? I ask because
> > the ‘payload’ of the /Spatial Data on the Web Best Practices document
> > appears to be relations mapped in “OWL, SKOS, RDFS” which to the casual
> > observer sounds like the semantic web.//
>
> yes, "linked data" is a rebranding of "semantic web", plus a few
> additional constraints (most importantly: "use dereferencable HTTP URIs
> for everything").
>
> fyi, there have been discussions on whether SDW should be RDF-centric or
> not. some (including myself) have argued that "the web" is much wider
> than the "semantic web", and that the draft in its current form should
> either be titled "spatial data on the semantic web", or should be
> changed to be agnostic of a specific metamodel and simply recommend
> patterns and best practices derived from web architecture.
>
> to this end, http://dret.github.io/webdata/ is something that could
> serve as a foundation or starting point: it talks about the principles
> of web architecture without mandating one specific metamodel. it's
> basically "linked data minus requiring RDF".
>
> this issue of "the current BP draft is for semweb users only" has been
> raised before. it remains to be seen which path the WG and the spec are
> going to take.
>
> cheers,
>
> dret.
>
> --
> erik wilde | mailto:erik.wilde@dret.net |
>             | http://dret.net/netdret    |
>             | http://twitter.com/dret    |
>
> --
>
>
> *Ed Parsons *FRGS
> Geospatial Technologist, Google
>
> +44 7825 382263 <07825%20382263> @edparsons
> www.edparsons.com
>
-- 


*Ed Parsons *FRGS
Geospatial Technologist, Google

+44 7825 382263 @edparsons
www.edparsons.com