Re: Princples...

Hi Chris & all,

this is a situation similar to good old XML: nobody wants to use it for pixels &
voxels, but everybody wants to have a seamless integration with XML metadata.
Historically these have been separate silos, with the OGC Coverage Information
Model there is a model that is agnostic of its encoding (XML, CSV, NetCDF, TIFF,
you-name-it).

The same I envisage for RDF: we can establish a conceptual model which describes
coverages through triples and ontologies while implementationwise encodings can
be kept variable. Same for operations: they can be expressed high-level in
SPARQL, but be mapped to efficient access internally.

Among the advantages are:
- key properties are established (and testable!) independently from the
encoding, therefore retaining the power of SPARQL.
- references a la LoD can reach deeply into a coverage, addressing
    metadata, such as resolution: "all coverages with resolution better than X"
    pixels, such as: "the latest timeslice" or "the timeseries at coordinate x/y"
...as they are expressible over URIs using GET or REST.

Querying data along this principle has been proven successful with SQL
integration (forthcoming ISO standard) and with XML integration (adopted OGC
standard: WCPS).

cheers,
Peter


On 04/23/15 10:31, Little, Chris wrote:
>
> Thiago, Kerry
>
>  
>
> Meteorology has use cases where linked data/RDF/triple stores/etc are not
> appropriate. Take a large (~1TByte) 5 dimensional data cube identified by only
> one URI/link, of one parameter, say the vector wind speed and direction,  and
> it is replaced every 6 hours. The data is all geo-referenced, and users wish
> to extract much more manageable subsets.
>
>  
>
> At this stage, I am not sure whether  *all*practices of W3C Best Practices for
> Publishing Linked Data <http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-bp/>
>
> are helpful.
>
>  
>
> Chris
>
>  
>
> *From:*Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au [mailto:Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au]
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 23, 2015 8:01 AM
> *To:* thiago.avila@ic.ufal.br; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: Princples...
>
>  
>
> Thiago,
>
> I  do not think we should be reiterating those practices – that is not our
> job. It would be unfortunate if we were contradictory, though.
>
>  
>
> In our case, it is not obvious to what extent this group is focusing on linked
> data, or not, and I think our views in the group  may be divergent.
>
>  
>
> The UCR document should be “A document setting out the range of problems that
> the working groups are trying to solve.”  So in that context  I thought to
> bring up the question ( deliberately phrased in the form that reflects my
> point of view!).
>
>  
>
> Kerry
>
>  
>
> *From:*Thiago José Tavares Ávila [mailto:thiago.avila@ic.ufal.br]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 23 April 2015 10:32 AM
> *To:* public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Princples...
>
>  
>
> Hello Kerry,
>
>  
>
> For 5th principle, Does geospatial data must follow all practices of W3C Best
> Practices for Publishing Linked Data <http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-bp/> ?
>
>  
>
> Regards. Thiago
>
>  
>
> 2015-04-19 23:26 GMT-03:00 <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au <mailto:Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>>:
>
> Here's 2 suggestions ( that may need improvement). 
>
>  
>
> No 5. That community good practice for 5 star linked data be followed,
> including the use of so-called cool uris and  ontology annotations (
> references need to be attached) 
>
>  
>
> No 6. That ontologies  conform (" are valid" ? check) to the language of  owl2
> dl. 
>
> (The latter is important for spatial and temporal reasoning.)
>
>  
>
> No 7. ( perhaps number  0) That these principles are aimed specifically at
> data published in RDF but where appropriate may also apply to other spatial
> data published on the web.
>
>
> Kerry
>
>  
>
> On 20 Apr 2015, at 8:17 am, "John Machin" <john.machin@abs.gov.au
> <mailto:john.machin@abs.gov.au>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Ed, Andreas,
>
>     I like the proposed principles so far.
>
>     Based on some of the comments in the last call, I wonder if we have to
>     have a principle related to keeping the practices up to date?
>
>     I realise that this might over-commitment from a WG with a specified
>     lifespan but if maintaining currency is a principle then the two sponsor
>     organisations may be encouraged to reconvene WGs to review and update the
>     Best Practices periodically.
>
>     Cheers,
>     *--
>     John Machin*
>
>     <graycol.gif>Andreas Harth ---18/04/2015 05:57:59 AM---Hi Ed, On
>     2015-04-16 14:10, Ed Parsons wrote:
>
>     From: Andreas Harth <harth@kit.edu <mailto:harth@kit.edu>>
>     To: <public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>>,
>     Date: 18/04/2015 05:57 AM
>     Subject: Re: Princples...
>
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>     Hi Ed,
>
>     On 2015-04-16 14:10, Ed Parsons wrote:
>     > So to start the ball rolling....
>     >
>     > Princple No.1 : The linkabilty of Geospatial Information published on
>     > the web should be improved.
>     >
>     [...]
>     >
>     > Princple No.2 : We will not reinvent
>     >
>     [...]
>     >
>     > Feel free to add to these, develop more ... when we reach a level of
>     > agreement I will transfer them over to the wiki
>
>     How about the following?
>
>     Principle No.3 : Best Practices have to be visible.
>
>     We will link to at least one (or two, three?) publicly available
>     example(s) of a non-toy dataset that follows the best practice.
>
>     Cheers,
>     Andreas.
>
>  
>

-- 
Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
   mail: p.baumann@jacobs-university.de
   tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
   www.rasdaman.com, mail: baumann@rasdaman.com
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)