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

On 2015-03-16 18:17, RaphaŽl Troncy wrote:
> Dear Oscar, all,
>> I am thinking on one, of instance, that I have realized that
>> may have not been covered in the use cases that we introduced but 
>> that has
>> been a recurring discussion with some of the people that we have been
>> working on, which is the possibility of explicitly "describing a default
>> geometry representation according to the zoom level with which some data
>> is being consumed≤. Obviously, this may be well be done at the consumer
>> side, but may also make sense to be made explicit in some cases, for
>> easier consumption.
> +1 for this requirement too. I remember that it has been discussed 
> already, in the Locations and Addresses community group, and I think 
> Frans has nicely captured this requirement in one of the email 
> threads. I would need to dig it up though.

That discussion (it is rather long, I'm afraid) can be found here: A 
pending activity in the Locations and Addresses group is the extension 
of the LOCN vocabulary <> with things that can 
be used to specify a coordinate reference system or spatial resolution.

In my mind, the best way to go about this is to have some kind of (maybe 
compound) numerical indicator of spatial resolution. It should be 
applicable to different things: vector data, raster data (coverages), 2D 
objects, 3D objects, geometries, data sets and data services 
(endpoints). The benefit of such a thing being numerical is that it will 
be easy to use it as a filter (e.g. Give me the contours of Barcelona 
with a resolution between X and Y,  Let's have a data set of land use 
with a resolution closest to X).

If this becomes an accepted requirement it would be a good idea to work 
together with the Locations and Addresses community group in this area.


>   RaphaŽl

Frans Knibbe
President Kennedylaan 1
1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)

T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
E <> | disclaimer 

Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2015 12:13:17 UTC