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

RE: Requirements from UC-19

From: Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 16:25:48 +0000
To: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <24637769D123E644A105A0AF0E1F92EF010CF6660F@dnbf-ex1.AD.DDB.DE>
Frans,

> Lars, thank you for your input. Some comments:
> 
> About the proposed requirement "It must be possible to state that the spatial
> coverage is inexact ("north of", "close to", "coordinates are approximate")": We
> have the Spatial Metadata requirement. One of the spatial characteristics is
> spatial resolution. For geometric data (expressed in coordinates), spatial
> resolution could have a straightforward expression, which would be a measure
> of exactness. Would that cover the "coordinates are approximate" bit?

It probably would, but that of course depends on how that "measure of exactness" must look like...

> I think
> "North of" is actually rather exact, it indicates a well defined area. "Close to" is
> yet another matter...without any other context the expression seems
> meaningless. Would it be possible to give an example that can show that it
> would be beneficial to have some kind of standardisation for "close to"?

Again historic sources. (Please don't nail me down on the exact place names): There are often cases in old (fictitious) narratives such as hagiography where they aim to create a sense of reality by giving details of existing places. Here the authors often refer to places "close to" other places, such as "the inn just at the crossing of the roads to Cheltenham and to Oxford". In many cases excavations revealed that there was an inn at that road crossing.

Best,

Lars
> 
> 
> 2015-04-21 18:17 GMT+02:00 Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de>:
> Dear Ed and Frans,
> 
> For my Use Case 19 (Publishing Cultural Heritage Data), I identified the
> following existing and new requirements:
> 
> - Best Practice
> -- existing
> 
> 1) There should be a common encoding/serialisation for spatial data as RDF
> 2) It should be possible to validate data
> 
> - Coverage
> -- existing
> 
> 1) Temporal context
> 2) geospatial alignment (not sure about this one, what it means is the
> alignment of a named entity to its geospatial feature)
> 
> -- new
> 
> 1) It must be possible to state that the spatial coverage is inexact ("north of",
> "close to", "coordinates are approximate")
> 
> - Time
> -- existing
> 
> 1) temporal granularity flexibility
> 2) temporal vagueness [fuzzy dates/periods]
> 3) temporal reasoning and relations (xsd formats)
> 4) nominal temporal references [e. g. " Vormärz", "La Tène period"]
> 
> Can you please insert those into the spreadsheet?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Lars
> 
> *** Lesen. Hören. Wissen. Deutsche Nationalbibliothek ***
> --
> Dr. Lars G. Svensson
> Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
> Informationsinfrastruktur und Bestanderhaltung
> Adickesallee 1
> D-60322 Frankfurt am Main
> Telefon: +49-69-1525-1752
> Telefax: +49-69-1525-1799
> mailto:l.svensson@dnb.de
> http://www.dnb.de

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Frans Knibbe
> Geodan
> President Kennedylaan 1
> 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)
> 
> T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
> E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
> www.geodan.nl
> disclaimer

Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2015 16:26:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:16 UTC