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

Re: Spatial context

From: Clemens Portele <portele@interactive-instruments.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:58:56 +0100
To: Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>
CC: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Andreas Harth <harth@kit.edu>
Message-ID: <4915EF29-7AD5-443B-8A9E-B1CFE8C6E090@interactive-instruments.de>
Maybe the addition to the first scoping question discussed yesterday is not strictly needed. However, in my understanding an important part of the best practice deliverable is how I can make good use of spatial data on the web (that is made available in accordance with the best practice recommendations) in order to provide additional spatial context - or however we want to call this - to my own data. It seems appropriate to me to reflect this in the scoping questions.

In my use case (https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Working_Use_Cases#Publishing_geospatial_reference_data_.28Best_Practice.29) I mention two examples related to this:
- Data that includes other identifiers/names/codes like postal code, statistical unit codes, cadastral parcel identifiers, RDS/TMC codes, etc as strings. I am not sure, if we will consider such data to be spatial data. The place names that Ed mentions are similar. Combined with / linked to some spatial data (with geometries) my own data gets a spatial context.
- Data that already includes geometry, but no links to related things. For example, how can someone find or display other data that is nearby? The most simple way is with a background map over which I draw my data and where a viewer can learn about the spatial context of my data.

I am sure we will find more cases when we go through the use cases.

If such aspects are included in everyones understanding of the first question, which is very general in its wording considering the title of the group, then fine.


On 19 Feb 2015, at 11:50, Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com<mailto:eparsons@google.com>> wrote:

This is a great discussion and I think it is central to the potentially difficult overlap between the two community perspectives.

I'm sure Josh will chip in but I do think we need to recognise that we need to include spatial information for which it is not possible to define a geometry or have linked to as an attribute - This I think is what Josh means by context, I am writing this email from a location within "Central London" although there is not a canonical geometry that represents the shape of central London.

This is an example of what Mike Goodchild calls a Platial Problem !

This must be in scope, does the current wording around spatial information accommodate it ?


On Thu Feb 19 2015 at 10:26:55 Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu<mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>> wrote:
Andreas's mail gives me the opportunity to explain the objection I
raised during the call [1] about the proposal of adding "spatial
context" into scope question #1 [2].

My main concern is that the use of "spatial context" in the scoping
question may be confusing, and probably unnecessary.

In my understanding, spatial context is specified through spatial data
- i.e., it denotes one of their possible uses. So, "spatial data"
should be inclusive enough - it would cover spatial data as a whole,
irrespective of their use.




On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Andreas Harth <harth@kit.edu<mailto:harth@kit.edu>> wrote:
> Hi,
> the issue I had with the term "spatial context" is that I did not know
> what the "context" part was supposed to mean.
> If I understood Josh correctly, he mentioned that a geometry,
> a place description or a spatial feature should be referenceable
> in data.
> If "spatial context" does mean that, I'm fine with the phrasing of
> the scoping question.
> Cheers,
> Andreas.

Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific / Technical Project Officer
European Commission DG JRC
Institute for Environment & Sustainability
Unit H06 - Digital Earth & Reference Data
Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
21027 Ispra VA, Italy


The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
position of the European Commission.
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2015 11:59:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:15 UTC