W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > March 2015

Re: Working list of BP requirements identified during the SDW WG f2f

From: Frans Knibbe | Geodan <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:54:05 +0100
Message-ID: <550815DD.1010604@geodan.nl>
To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
On 2015-03-16 10:04, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote:
> Thanks Andrea.
>
> Though I was not present in the meeting, I'd like to add a couple of considerations:
>
> 1.1 URIs should be stable/persistent - I have seen suggestions that URIs can be easily minted using database keys. The risk with these is that keys are probably less stable than the things identified.
Yes, that is a suggestion I made when the  discussion drifted towards 
already finding answers for the requirements that we were supposed to 
harvest. I think using database keys defers the problem of finding a 
scheme for minting URIs to the scheme that is used in the relational 
database. In some cases, database keys will be designed and assigned is 
such a way that persistence is guaranteed. In other cases not. But 
still, they are a good candidate to be looking at when thinking of a way 
to mint URIs.

But more importantly, I think we will have to decide not to view a 
requirement like 'there should be a best practice for minting URIs of 
spatial phenomena' as something we should busy ourselves with. I can 
think of no reason to see the URI minting problem as something that is 
inherently spatial, temporal or spatiotemporal. Besides that, there 
already are some good guidelines on minting URIs out there.

>
> 1.8 The OGC URI scheme includes common CRS. Try http://www.opengis.net/def/crs/EPSG/0/4326 for example. I trust that one of the OGC people in the meeting mentioned this?

I am fairly sure that this was mentioned, and if not it is good to see 
it mentioned here. Two things came up that indicate that we might want 
to go a step further: Firstly, the OGC reference systems do have URIs, 
but they are not dereferencable to data describing the reference 
systems. Secondly, it would be good to have some best practice for the 
description of reference systems in general, not just earth-based 
reference systems.

I noticed an interesting parallel for time and space there: In both 
cases the regular reference systems are fairly well covered by standards 
(earth based reference systems for space, Gregorian calendar for time), 
but less common reference systems are not easy to use in a standardized way.

Regards,
Frans

>
> Simon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrea Perego [mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu]
> Sent: Monday, 16 March 2015 5:03 PM
> To: SDW WG
> Subject: Working list of BP requirements identified during the SDW WG f2f
>
> Dear all,
>
> I've extracted from the minutes of the BP deliverable group a preliminary list of requirements, concerning the discussed use cases (1-24).
>
> You can find it on the wiki:
>
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Requirements
>
> Please have a look, and modify / extend it as you see fit.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andrea
>
> --
> 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.
>
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frans Knibbe
Geodan
President Kennedylaan 1
1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)

T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
www.geodan.nl <http://www.geodan.nl> | disclaimer 
<http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2015 11:54:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:15 UTC