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

Re: General comments on UCR doc

From: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 10:38:19 +0200
Message-id: <CAHzfgWCX-98C+QJ2vQuYVv23i1oXVAS3EE8uGQbWdSqFrBtSUA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kerry Taylor <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>
Cc: Peter Baumann <p.baumann@jacobs-university.de>, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>, SDW WG <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Hi, Kerry.

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 9:15 AM,  <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au> wrote:
> 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.

Making data available in multiple formats is already a common practice
on the Web, and it is included in the DWBP WG BP document:

http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#MultipleFormats

We just have to ensure that this is adopted for spatial data. IMO,
this is a key feature needed to enable wider re-use of spatial data.

Actually, we already have a (limited) number of examples, like
PlaceTime.com (http://vocab.org/placetime/) for time and geometries,
Spatial Reference and EPSG.io for reference systems. This practice
should be promoted and improved (e.g., by adding support to other
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.

Thanks, Kerry. I'll check that.

Cheers,

Andrea
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2015 08:39:04 UTC

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