Re: General comments on UCR doc

There is another requirement so that spatial data can be "interchangeably" exchanged and processed in different formats, and that is for the different formats use the same geometry model. The ISO/OGC Simple Features standard has arguably done more for interchangeability of spatial data across many formats and platforms than any other.


Joshua Lieberman, Ph.D.
Interoperability Engineering Without Barriers
+1 (617) 431-6431

> On May 27, 2015, at 05:25, Andrea Perego <> wrote:
> 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.
> Andrea
> PS: I've been following the "profile" thread you started with the
> greatest interest.

Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2015 11:45:11 UTC