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

Dear all,

This is to let you know that I did some updates to the BP reqs document [1].

1. For each of the domain-independent use cases I added a subsection
"How this should be implemented for spatial data?". The idea is that
it can be a way to outline issues and solutions for addressing such
requirements in spatial data. Do you think this makes sense?

2. I've also added pointers to the relevant DWBP WG best practices.

3. I've included in the URI-related req [2] the requirements
concerning persistence and dereferenceability proposed by Simon [3]
and Raphaƫl [4], respectively. Now it reads as follows:

"Use (persistent and dereferenceable) URIs to make (spatial) data
visible on the Web"

Should we instead add them as separate requirements?

4. About the issue raised by Oscar [5] concerning zoom level / spatial
resolution, I wonder whether this can be included by extending /
re-wording req "Be able to get the data with coordinates that match
the coordinate system of my map" [6].




On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Andrea Perego
<> wrote:
>> [snip]
>> 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.
> Just to add the following:
> During the UC review carried out by the BP group, one of the points
> that were made was that requirements should be grouped based on
> whether they were specific to spatial data or concerning any kind of
> data on the Web.
> The BP reqs page on the wiki reflects this "classification" [1].
> PIDs can well be considered as a common requirement for any data on
> the Web - and, actually, the DWBP WG covers this in BP-8:
> BTW, the recent publication of the DWBP WG working draft raises the
> question on how we plan to integrate their BPs (although still
> unstable) in our work - especially on the scope of our BPs.
> Cheers,
> Andrea
> ----
> [1]

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

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.

Received on Thursday, 19 March 2015 08:50:21 UTC