GeoDCAT-AP overview and open issues

Dears,

Since the current candidate as a first BP is related to metadata
requirements, I would like to summarise some of the work done in the
framework of GeoDCAT-AP that might be relevant.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Frans and Simon,
who have already contributed comments to the GeoDCAT-AP specification.

Briefly, the gaps identified as critical concern how to model
reference systems (spatial and temporal) and spatial resolution. The
GeoDCAT-AP WG decided not to mint new terms, and to define provisional
mappings (re-using existing vocabularies), to be replaced in the
future with more appropriate ones - in particular, based on the
recommendations from the SDW WG.

However, this decision might be revised based on the feedback received
during the public review period, which may lead to the requirement of
minting specific terms.

Cheers,

Andrea

----

GEOMETRIES / BOUNDING BOXES

I have already explained the approach currently adopted in GeoDCAT-AP
in an earlier email:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jun/0167.html

The issue here is the lack of an agreed way on how to model a bbox.

REFERENCE SYSTEMS

The GeoDCAT-AP WG aimed at using specific properties for spatial and
temporal reference systems, but no candidate was identified.

The decision was to use dct:conformsTo with the HTTP URI of the
reference system (when available), but marking this mapping as
"unstable". The intention is to replace it with more appropriate
properties, when there will be a de jure or de facto standard way on
how to model this information.

This decision might be revised based on the feedback received during
the public review period, which may lead to the requirement of minting
specific terms.

SPATIAL RESOLUTION

This was even more complicate. The decision was to dump this
information in a free text field. This solution is marked as
"unstable", and, as for reference systems, it is meant to be replaced
when there will be a standardised way of modelling this information.

Also in the case, the comments received during the public review
period may lead to the decision of defining new terms to model spatial
resolution.

DATA QUALITY

For all the ISO 19115 elements concerning data quality, the GeoDCAT-AP
WG decided to define only "partial" mappings, basically limited to the
component "conformance result". This was due to the lack of suitable
candidates in the RDF vocabularies under consideration.

The adopted approach to provide a complete modelling of conformance
results is making use of PROV. In addition, dct:conformsTo is used to
model just one of the possible conformance results (i.e., "conformant"
/ "test passed").

The PROV pattern used is based on feedback received from the PROV WG -
see the mail thread starting at:

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-comments/2015May/0001.html

Received on Thursday, 23 July 2015 10:20:34 UTC