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 11:25:42 +0200
Message-id: <CAHzfgWCjs2pvJYP7nn6W6gfh+3EnvBYjHjpO1mN5_PfomeyDyg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Svensson, Lars" <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
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, Lars.

>> > [snip]
>> >
>> > 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.

Good point, Lars. The inability to negotiate the "profile" is
definitely one of the gaps to be addressed. But my proposal was less
ambitious, and was just about basic HTTP conneg (so, media types). If
this is not enabled, it would be difficult to get to more
sophisticated features.


PS: I've been following the "profile" thread you started with the
greatest interest.
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2015 09:26:28 UTC

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