- From: Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
- Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 08:37:35 +0000
- To: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>, Peter Baumann <p.baumann@jacobs-university.de>
- Cc: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>, SDW WG <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 10:26 AM, Andrea Perego wrote: > >> [snip] > >> > >> 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). > > I tend to agree. But it's unclear to me how this will be implemented, > in practice. E.g., would this require that applications should be able > to consume spatial data irrespective of their format? Is the requirement that client and server need to be able to negotiate the format? If so, what exactly is the format. I guess it's not the media-type (e. g. RDF/XML, Turtle, ...) but something more like an RDF Shape [1]. I think we need to interact with the W3C data shape WG on this. There has been some discussion on shape negotiation on the LOD list [2] that I sparked off a few weeks ago, but there has been no consensus on the matter yet. [1] http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/ [2] Long thread starting at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2015May/0034.html Best, Lars
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2015 08:38:05 UTC