Re: General comments on UCR doc

Andrea, Peter,

I think Peter's "format" comment is closer to the mark-- I cannot see that we will have any influence at all on the "must" be in multiple formats.

On the temporal aspect: this is indeed a matter of importance for the group, but is largely dealt with as owltime requirements, not best practices requirements, because we have a clear technical deliverable in that area. We do need to make sure our time approach is well articulated to our best practices for spatial, though.

Please check the owltime requirements, and then please let us know if that does not catch the spatio- temporal adequately.


On 27 May 2015, at 3:01 pm, "Peter Baumann" <<>> wrote:

Hi Andrea,

On 05/27/15 01:10, Andrea Perego wrote:
Dear Frans, dear Alejandro,

Iím including below some general comments to the UCR document.




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

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
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. Iím 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.


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<>
  tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
- Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)<>, mail:<>
  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 07:16:22 UTC