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

?  Firstly, the OGC reference systems do have URIs, but they are not dereferencable to data describing the reference systems.
Err - if you dereference the example, you get a full description in GML. AFAIK currently this is the only public standard for describing CRS.

From: Frans Knibbe | Geodan [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
Sent: Tuesday, 17 March 2015 10:54 PM
To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Working list of BP requirements identified during the SDW WG f2f

On 2015-03-16 10:04, Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto: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: [SJDC] v 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<mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
www.geodan.nl<http://www.geodan.nl> | disclaimer<http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>
________________________________