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

Re: General comments on UCR doc

From: Peter Baumann <p.baumann@jacobs-university.de>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 07:00:16 +0200
Message-ID: <55654F60.2020506@jacobs-university.de>
To: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>
CC: SDW WG <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Hi Andrea,


On 05/27/15 01:10, Andrea Perego wrote:
> Dear Frans, dear Alejandro,
>
> I’m including below some general comments to the UCR document.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andrea
>
> ----
>
> 1. I don't see a requirement about the fact that spatial data must be
> available in multiple formats. This is something that popped-up quite
> frequently during the discussions in Barcelona, and it is implied by a
> number of requirements.  I think this is something that must be
> explicitly and clearly stated, and it goes together with the
> linkability requirement, as both are key principles for the Web
> architecture.

much agreed, but I'd turn it around:
Spatiotemporal data must be processable independently from their format (while
recognizing that the amount of metadata available in each format varies).


> 2. Many of the requirements may apply both to data and metadata. It
> would be useful to clarify the use of "data" in the UCR document:
> whether it applies only to data, or to metadata as well.
>
> 3. Req 5.42 - Spatial metadata: This requirement is missing the
> "temporal" dimension, that is implied in a number of related UCs. See
> also my mail https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Apr/0123.html
> I suggest we revise the bullet list as follows:
> - coordinate reference system(s) -> spatial and temporal reference system(s)
> - spatial extent -> spatial and temporal extent
> - spatial resolution -> spatial and temporal resolution
> BTW, in my understanding, this requirement is already implying quite a
> few of those we have at the moment in the UCR doc - as bbox and
> centroid, crawlability, discoverability, multilingual support, spatial
> and temporal vagueness, time series, valid time, nominal temporal
> references, etc. I’m just thinking aloud, but I wonder whether we
> should keep a separate requirement for metadata. At least, in the
> current version of the UCR doc, the scope of this should be clarified.

again, 1+ from my side. Based on the work of the OGC Temporal.DWG we might
differentiate between
- time axis, counted in seconds since epoch (this is corresponding to degrees &
meters in space); this is relatively simple and can be described via common CRS
mechanisms like WKT
- calendars allowing common data/time notation (such as ISO 8601), for
Gregorian, Japanese Imperial, carbon date, climate date (360 days per year), and
many others; this is tricky, but practically indispensable.

-Peter

>
> 4. Req 5.6 - Crawlability: This requirement should concern both to
> data and metadata. See also points (2) and (3) above.
>
>

-- 
Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
   mail: p.baumann@jacobs-university.de
   tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
   www.rasdaman.com, mail: baumann@rasdaman.com
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2015 05:00:48 UTC

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