W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > April 2015

Re: discoverability and crawlability

From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:00:42 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFVDz41DngurtPFL5ovLc0cz1ZHDwexDYSyO_gYxALvMzZ0qsA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>
Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>
Hello Ed,

Yes, I can see granularity and direct access is an issue. It would be good
to make that clear.

How about the following two requirements?

1) Spatial data on the web should be recognizable as spatial data (by
humans, but especially by machines).
2) It should be possible to directly identify and retrieve data about
individual spatial things.

While these requirements would fulfill the need for discoverability and
crawlability, I think they are more to the point and perhaps some more in
scope.

Regards,
Frans


2015-04-29 12:31 GMT+02:00 Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>:

> Hi Frans,
>
> I think we are trying to express the issue that Geospatial information
> because of the way it has been published/shared up until this point is not
> discoverable in the way say ascii, csv, or even pdf is.  It is less to do
> with missing standards as to best practice in terms of publishing at a
> granular level data with uri's and not publishing using opaque service
> interfaces.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> Ed Parsons
> Geospatial Technologist, Google
>
> Mobile: +44 (0)7
> ‚Äč825 382263
>
> Personal blog www.edparsons.com/blog/
>
>
> "It's better to be a pirate than to join the Navy."
>
>
> On 29 April 2015 at 09:54, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> In trying to arrive at a lean and mean list of requirements in the UCR
>> document I am now pondering on two requirements: discoverability
>> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#Discoverability>
>> and crawlability
>> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#Crawlability>.
>> They are in the UCR draft now, but I wonder if they should stay there.
>> Neither requirement seems to be particularly spatial, so are they in scope?
>> Or are they yet another example of non-functional requirements (that would
>> be good to pass on to the Data on the Web Best Pracices Working Group)?
>>
>> Could we replace these two requirements with a requirement that says
>> something like "Spatial data on the web should be recognizable as spatial
>> data"?  I think spatial data at the moment are worse off in this respect
>> when compared to other basic data types, like text, numbers, or images,
>> because there is no widely adopted standard yet that allows one to state
>> that a particular thing is a spatial thing. If there would be, that would
>> be benificial for both discoverability and crawlability.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Frans
>>
>> --
>> 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 <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>
>>
>>
>


-- 
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 <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2015 11:01:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:16 UTC