- From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:55:27 +0200
- To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFVDz40udMJbk9-tfNfNgOREsE2TQ2sNEix6BuuD8ybTvt20ug@mail.gmail.com>
Dear group and especially the BP editors, In the meeting two weeks ago the question was raised if there could be a good candidate for a best practice that might serve as a test case on how best practices can be described in the BP document. After some thought (and admittedly, mostly forgetting about it), I would like to suggest *spatial resolution*. It is not a separate requirement, but it is one of the metadata elements that is listed in the Spatial metadata requirement <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#SpatialMetadata> . I think that finding a best practice for spatial resolution could be a reasonably isolated endeavour, it does not seem to rely much on other (thorny) best practices such a geometry encoding or CRS. Moreover, GeoDCAT-AP <https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/node/139283/> describes semantics for spatial resolution as having no candidates in the semantic web, so if a best practice is found it can immediately be put to use. I should also note that an extension to the Location Core vocabulary (LOCN) <http://www.w3.org/ns/locn> was suggested to provide semantics for spatial resolution, so this is also an opportunity to cooperate with other communities. For example, SDDWG could urge LOCADD <https://www.w3.org/community/locadd/> to finalize the spatial resolution extension to the LOCN vocabulary and validate the solution against requirements for spatial data on the web. 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>
Received on Wednesday, 22 July 2015 11:55:57 UTC