- From: Peter Baumann <p.baumann@jacobs-university.de>
- Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 21:09:19 +0200
- To: <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, <allaves@fi.upm.es>
- Message-ID: <557496DF.3090203@jacobs-university.de>
hm, both seem important: - the first one is about "making available", ie: _service_ interfaces. If we have no standard way of doing that then we will fall back to file download exclusively, which - as discussion has shown - is not desirable in face of the large sizes. - the second one is about _data_ specification. As we have talked about coverages so much - and I believe we found them important - let me suggest to add OGC coverages [OGC document 09-146r2] to the list to be inspected. If we only focus on file formats then we will end up with metadata which are specific for individual formats, whereas a data model behind allows to do reasoning across and largely independently from formats. FYI, in ISO TC211 the approach is to first adopt the OGC coverage model as 19123-2, and then look into WCS. The same approach has been taken by INSPIRE. greetings from the TC211 meeting in Southampton, Peter On 06/05/15 17:37, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote: > > ISSUE-18: Model Reuse > > Frans has asked > > - Do you > think [http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#ModelReuse] > could actually be the same requirement as the > Compatibility with existing practices > > <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#Compatibility> > requirement? > > Looking at how the two requirements are currently cast > > Compatibility with existing practices > > Standards for spatial data on the Web should be compatible with existing > methods of making spatial data available (like WFS, WMS, CSW, WCS). > > appears to refer to compatibility at the protocol level, while > > Model reuse > > Spatial data modeling issues solved in existing models shall be considered > for adoption, e.g. O&M or SoilML. > > appears to concern data models (semantics). > > > > These are fairly separate concerns. Complete interoperability requires both, > but my hunch is that the second is a much more desirable goal than the first. > Semantics is longer lasting than architectural styles. > > > > *Simon Cox** | **Research Scientist** > CSIRO Land and Water* > PO Box 56, Highett Vic 3190, Australia > Tel +61 3 9252 6342 <tel:%2B61%203%209252%206342> *| *Mob +61 403 302 672 > <tel:%2B61%20403%20302%20672> > simon.cox@csiro.au > <https://vic.owa.csiro.au/owa/redir.aspx?C=Y8HMKTuUBkmbM97NjtDx5lGOnwxj1c9IdyRdGXbcQ8yykNtSsGHlgXUbOJN1bdSmnc9NFxd8E0M.&URL=mailto%3asimon.cox%40csiro.au> > *| *http://people.csiro.au/C/S/Simon-Cox > > <http://people.csiro.au/C/S/Simon-Cox> > <http://people.csiro.au/C/S/Simon-Cox> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > *From:* Frans Knibbe [frans.knibbe@geodan.nl] > *Sent:* Saturday, 6 June 2015 12:23 AM > *To:* SDW WG Public List; Alejandro Llaves > *Cc:* Cox, Simon (L&W, Highett); Peter Baumann > *Subject:* Re: The model reuse requirement > > Hello, > > I think this issue still needs some thought. If it is only about not > reinventing the wheel, then I think the requirement is too general to be in > scope (note that it is already in the list of BP Principles > <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Principles>). On the other hand, if > there are specific requirements to be made for development of ontologies for > sensors or coverages, I think we could have the requirement in the UCR > document. But ISO 19123, the Data Cube vocabulary and WaterML Part 1 - > Timeseries are already mentioned in the description of the deliverable in the > charter <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/charter#cov>. I don't think we need to > repeat that in a requirement. > > Anyway, since this issue is not resolved yet I have created an issue in the > tracker: ISSUE-18 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/18>, and I > have linked the requirement to the issue in the UCR document. > > Regards, > Frans > > 2015-06-05 2:09 GMT+02:00 Peter Baumann <p.baumann@jacobs-university.de > <mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de>>: > > almost correct. > > The OGC Coverages Model supports: > - grids > non-referenced (ie, no coordinates) > regular grids (eg, ortho images) > irregular grids (currently being generalized as an outcome of OGC > Testbed-11, also towards sensor models) > - so-called discrete coverages (sorry, this naming comes from ISO 19123): > point clouds > trajectory sets > surface sets > solid sets > ...and all of that in n dimensions, including space & time. > > Coming back to grids, coverages are successfully being used for 2D > imagery, 3D x/y/t image timeseries (!) and x/y/z geophysical voxel models, > 4D x/y/z/t climate data. > > Sequences of (timestamp,image) pairs have been standardized in EO-WCS (WCS > for Earth Observation data, ie: remote sensing imagery), further work on > this is under way (because we also want good functional support, right?). > > Bottom line, OGC's coverages are certainly not the end of the story (is > there one in IT world?), but represent the currently most comprehensive > treatment of the subject. > > cheers, > Peter > > > > On 06/05/15 01:37, Simon.Cox@csiro.au <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote: >> >> However, we also need to be careful to fully understand the scope of the >> components that we reuse. >> >> >> >> For example, the OGC Coverages model that Peter refers to relates >> particularly to gridded coverages (imagery). It does not support some >> other important coverage-types and common representations. For example, a >> Time-series is a coverage (it is the variation of a property along one >> spatio-temporal axis). In environmental monitoring applications it is >> usually represented as a stream of interleaved position(i.e. >> time)-value(,value(,value...)) objects. This is not compatible with the >> current OGC Coverages standard. So while OGC Coverages provides a good >> solution for grids, it doesn't cover the whole space. >> >> >> >> *Simon Cox** | **Research Scientist** >> CSIRO Land and Water* >> PO Box 56, Highett Vic 3190, Australia >> Tel +61 3 9252 6342 <tel:%2B61%203%209252%206342> *| *Mob +61 403 302 672 >> <tel:%2B61%20403%20302%20672> >> simon.cox@csiro.au >> <https://vic.owa.csiro.au/owa/redir.aspx?C=Y8HMKTuUBkmbM97NjtDx5lGOnwxj1c9IdyRdGXbcQ8yykNtSsGHlgXUbOJN1bdSmnc9NFxd8E0M.&URL=mailto%3asimon.cox%40csiro.au> >> *| *http://people.csiro.au/C/S/Simon-Cox >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> *From:* Peter Baumann [p.baumann@jacobs-university.de >> <mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de>] >> *Sent:* Friday, 29 May 2015 11:39 PM >> *To:* Frans Knibbe; Alejandro Llaves >> *Cc:* SDW WG Public List >> *Subject:* Re: The model reuse requirement >> >> Frans, >> >> me again; >> not sure that we should mention some particular model; if so we might be >> more comprehensive - at least, as coverages are in focus, the OGC >> coverage model should be referenced: OGC document 09-146r2, link: >> https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=48553 available from >> this page: http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/wcs . >> >> -Peter >> >> >> On 05/29/15 14:24, Frans Knibbe wrote: >>> Hello Alejandro, >>> >>> I think the model reuse requirement >>> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#ModelReuse> could >>> do with some clarification. Currently it reads "Spatial data modelling >>> issues solved in existing models shall be considered for adoption, e.g. >>> O&M or SoilML". >>> >>> * What kind of spatial data modelling issues are solved in existing >>> models? Is it possible to give an example? >>> * Could references to O&M and SoilML be added? >>> * Do you think this could actually be the same requirement as the >>> Compatibility with existing practices >>> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#Compatibility> >>> requirement? >>> >>> >>> 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> >>> >> >> -- >> Dr. Peter Baumann >> - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen >> www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann <http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann> >> mail: p.baumann@jacobs-university.de <mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de> >> tel: +49-421-200-3178 <tel:%2B49-421-200-3178>, fax: +49-421-200-493178 <tel:%2B49-421-200-493178> >> - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793) >> www.rasdaman.com <http://www.rasdaman.com>, mail: baumann@rasdaman.com <mailto:baumann@rasdaman.com> >> tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882 <tel:%2B49-173-5837882> >> "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) >> >> > > -- > Dr. Peter Baumann > - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen > www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann <http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann> > mail: p.baumann@jacobs-university.de <mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de> > tel: +49-421-200-3178 <tel:%2B49-421-200-3178>, fax: +49-421-200-493178 <tel:%2B49-421-200-493178> > - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793) > www.rasdaman.com <http://www.rasdaman.com>, mail: baumann@rasdaman.com <mailto:baumann@rasdaman.com> > tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882 <tel:%2B49-173-5837882> > "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) > > > > > > -- > Frans Knibbe > Geodan > President Kennedylaan 1 > 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL) > > T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347 > 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 Sunday, 7 June 2015 19:09:59 UTC