- From: Peter Baumann <p.baumann@jacobs-university.de>
- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 17:39:30 +0200
- To: Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>, Frans Knibbe | Geodan <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
- CC: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <5540FB32.9030503@jacobs-university.de>
good point, Ed! The two-silo subdivision into catalogs and data archives is being overcome and should not be hardwired. -Peter On 04/29/15 17:27, Ed Parsons wrote: > > I prefer 1 & 2, I want to be able to crawl and discover in one step - not > interrogate a catalogue, parse it and then only as a final step visit the data... > > Ed > > > Ed Parsons > Geospatial Technologist,Google > > Mobile: +44 (0)7 > 825 382263 > > Personal blog www.edparsons.com/blog/ <http://www.edparsons.com/blog/> > > "It's better to be a pirate than to join the Navy." > > Hi Ed, > > Ok, so then the requirements would be: > > 1) Spatial data on the web should be discoverable as spatial data (by humans, > but especially by machines). > 2) It should be possible to directly identify and retrieve data about > individual spatial things. > > Or should > > * the abilty to discover spatial data on the web > > and > > * the abilty to recognize data on the web as being spatial > > be two separate requirements? > > For example, discoverability can be helped by having data set catalogs, and by > having an easy way of deriving URI's of individual resources from a dataset > URI. The ability to recognize data on the web could be helped by having a > common data type, or collection of data types. > > Regards, > Frans > > > > > > > 2015-04-29 13:15 GMT+02:00 Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com > <mailto:eparsons@google.com>>: > > Rather than recognisable could we say discoverable.. Key issue is to allow > web crawling. > > Ed > > On 29 Apr 2015 1:00 pm, "Frans Knibbe" <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl > <mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>> wrote: > > 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 > <mailto: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 > 825 382263 > > Personal blog www.edparsons.com/blog/ <http://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 > <mailto: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 <tel:%2B31%20%280%2920%20-%205711%20347> > E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl <mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> > www.geodan.nl <http://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 <tel:%2B31%20%280%2920%20-%205711%20347> > E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl <mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> > www.geodan.nl <http://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 <tel:%2B31%20%280%2920%20-%205711%20347> > E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl <mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> > www.geodan.nl <http://www.geodan.nl> > disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer> > -- 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)
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2015 15:40:09 UTC