Re: [sddwg] the need for a glossary

Thanks Frans,  + 1 to synonyms and examples

Ed

On Mon Feb 23 2015 at 17:00:07 Frans Knibbe | Geodan <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
wrote:

>  Hello Kerry, all,
>
> How nice to have a glossary already. I have tried to expand the glossary
> (added the term 'spatial thing') , and have come up with the following
> issues/questions:
>
>    1. I like to link things, so I placed an anchor at the new term so it
>    can be linked to. I used the "Generic anchor" described here
>    <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Link#Manual_anchors>. Is that the
>    way we should create anchors? Note that if we let terms be headings,
>    anchors and a table of contents will be created automatically.
>     2. I have placed an anchor at the term Location
>    <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Glossary_of_terms#location> too,
>    so I could link to that definition. Is that OK?
>     3. I would like to expand the description of the term Location
>    <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Glossary_of_terms#location>.
>    Specifically, I would like to link to the definitions in dcterms
>    <http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-Location> and locn
>    <http://www.w3.org/ns/locn#dcterms:Location>. Is it OK to expand the
>    description proposed by Kerry for such a thing? In other words: at what
>    time should and alternative definition be made?
>     4. I felt the need to list equivalent terms (synonyms) and examples.
>    I placed those in the Definition column, but it would make more sense to me
>    have different columns in the table for that, or some other kind of
>    separation.
>
>  Regards,
>  Frans
>
>
> On 2015-02-23 13:03, Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au wrote:
>
>  SDW people,
>
> In order to help us to talk about “approximately the same things”, I have
> started a wiki glossary page --
> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Glossary_of_terms.
>
>
>
> I hope that this will enable us to share alternative definitions and to
> act as a point of reference when we are talking about things.  It would not
> be a good idea if developing this glossary distracts us from the main game
> of the working group deliverables.  I have tried to  suggest how it should
> be used above the glossary list itself on the wiki.  In particular, I do
> not think that  we should strive to reach agreement on the meanings of
> these definitions.
>
>
>
> Please populate it!
>
>
>
> Kerry
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Frans Knibbe | Geodan [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
> <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>]
> *Sent:* Monday, 23 February 2015 9:46 PM
> *To:* public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Spatial context
>
>
>
> On 2015-02-21 19:38, Krzysztof Janowicz wrote:
>
>  Hi,
>
>
>  This discussion seems to point at an important requirement for our work,
> which may or may not be derived from use cases, but still is important: We
> need clear and universal semantics.
>
>
> IMHO, this has been tried in the realm of philosophical ontology for 2500+
> years and we are not there yet. Language simply does not work that way. In
> information ontology we want to restrict the meaning of domain vocabulary
> towards its intended interpretation. Today's semantic web technologies, for
> instance, are meant to uncover similarities and differences by providing a
> formal axiomatization of the used terminology to foster interoperability,
> not to arrive at some sort of 'truth' (i.e., universal semantics).
>
> Actually, I was thinking about universal semantics in the sense of a
> widely accepted web ontology. Perhaps we will not succeed in completely
> harmonizing all the different ontologies for spatial data that exist now,
> but if we somehow could work towards web semantics for spatial data that
> describe some basic concepts (spatial resource, location, coverage, ...)
> that bear the mark of approval from both OGC and W3C, that would be a huge
> success. All new and existing vocabularies that have something spatial
> could  then make use of those definitions, creating a base level of
> interoperability. One data publisher might like to publish spatial data as
> WKT geometry, the other might publish spatial data as post addresses, but
> still humans and software would be able to combine the data because they
> would be based on a common definition of 'a spatial resource'.
>
> These universal web semantics for spatial data that I am thinking of do
> not necessarily have to come in the shape of a new vocabulary. It could
> also be an improvement of an existing vocabulary like GeoSPARQL or  the
> Location Core Vocabulary.
>
> I think having a simple glossary, with definitions in human language, a
> few examples, and links to existing definitions could be a good starting
> point for formalized universal web semantics.
>
>
>
>
>  What makes a thing spatial? Does it have to have geometry? Does it have
> to have three dimensions? Does it need to be a terrestial object? Does it
> need to be non-fictional? All these things are debatable, but rather than
> debate them it would be good to have agreed upon semantics.
>
>
> I tried to make this point during our call by introducing the
> platial/placial notion but maybe I was not clear enough. I would suggest
> not to confuse spatial with geometry and explicitly include the notion of
> place into our scope. Otherwise we would not be able to address many
> relevant spatial search problems like vague regions. This nice paper
> "Montello, Daniel R., Alinda Friedman, and Daniel W. Phillips. "Vague
> cognitive regions in geography and geographic information science." *International
> Journal of Geographical Information Science* 28.9 (2014): 1802-1820."
> from my college Dan illustrated the problems and differences nicely.
>
>
> I agree. It is that kind of potential confusion that led me to propose
> starting a glossary page.
>
>  [snip]
>
> Personally, I would strongly prefer if we would scope the working group
> *methodologically* instead of by trying to define exact borders for a
> complex and dynamic topic such as spatial data.
>
>
> Yes, trying to define exact borders would take a lot of effort with low
> chances of success. But we do need to make sure that we will talk about
> approximately the same things.
>
> Regards,
> Frans
>
>
>
> Best,
> Jano
>
>
> On 02/19/2015 05:14 AM, Frans (Geodan) wrote:
>
> I think that the question whether data are spatial data largely depends on
> the data publisher. The designation “Greater London” could be published as
> a text label, in which case it is not spatial data. It could also be
> published as a toponym, in which it is spatial data.
>
> This discussion seems to point at an important requirement for our work,
> which may or may not be derived from use cases, but still is important: We
> need clear and universal semantics.
>
> What makes a thing spatial? Does it have to have geometry? Does it have to
> have three dimensions? Does it need to be a terrestial object? Does it need
> to be non-fictional? All these things are debatable, but rather than debate
> them it would be good to have agreed upon semantics.
>
> At the moment, there are some definitions out there on the semantic web.
> For example, the Location Core Vocabulary <http://www.w3.org/ns/locn>
> defines the concept 'location'. Unfortunately the definition is
> self-referencing: “any location, irrespective of size or other
> restriction”. In other words, it is very open to interpretation. Is “Paris”
> a location (knowing that there are multiple locations with that name)? Is
> Atlantis (fictional) a location? Is Olympus Mons (on Mars) a location?
>
> GeoSPARQL has definitions for the concept 'SpatialObject': “..everything
> that can have a spatial representation” (unfortunately the 'spatial
> representation' part is undefined) and 'Feature': “..equivalent to
> GFI_Feature defined in ISO 19156:2011”. Unfortunately GFI_Feature as
> defined in ISO 19156:2011 is not a web resource and ISO 19156:2011 is not
> an open standard (because you have to pay for it). But it's a start...
>
> Greetings,
> Frans
>
>
>
> On 2015-02-19 11:50, Ed Parsons 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 ?
>
>
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu Feb 19 2015 at 10:26:55 Andrea Perego <
> 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.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Andrea
>
> ----
> [1]http://www.w3.org/2015/02/18-sdw-minutes.html
> [2]http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Scope_questions_and_Requirements
>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Andreas Harth <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
>
> https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
>
> ----
> 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.
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> <http://www.avast.com/>
>
> Dit e-mailbericht bevat geen virussen en malware omdat avast! Antivirus
> <http://www.avast.com/> actief is.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  --
>
> Krzysztof Janowicz
>
>
>
> Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
>
> 4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060
>
>
>
> Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu
>
> Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
>
> Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> 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>
> ------------------------------
>