Re: More UCR comments

2015-06-09 12:06 GMT+02:00 Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>:

> Thanks for your comments, Clemens! Find my answers inline.
>
> On 2 June 2015 at 22:54, Clemens Portele <
> portele@interactive-instruments.de> wrote:
>
>> Dear Frans, Alejandro, all,
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Requirement 5.20 (linkability) states: *"Spatial data on the Web should
>> be linkable (by explicit relationships between different facts in different
>> data sets), to other spatial data and to or from other types of data."*
>>
>> I did not find "fact" in the glossary. On the other hand it has "feature"
>> and that is used in other requirements, too. I would therefore propose to
>> change "facts" to "features".
>>
>
> Makes sense to me. Changed.
>

 I see two risks with changing 'fact' to 'feature':


   1. It is my understanding that in the OGC /ISO19101 world a feature is a
   rather high level concept: a feature has attributes or properties that
   themselves are not features. For instance, a city can be regarded as a
   feature while its name, start date or geometry are attributes, not
   features. So this change would mean a drastic change in the meaning of the
   requirement.
   2. The definition of 'feature' in the glossary now is 'abstraction of
   real-world phenomena'. To me that sounds suspiciously like
   'non-information resource', which means that one could understand this
   requirement to exclude information resources.

In this requirement, 'facts' should be read as a synonym of 'data'. How
about just making that change?

I have just created ISSUE-21
<https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/21> to mark this as an
unresolved issue in the UCR document.

Regards,
Frans