- From: Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
- Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 18:43:53 +0000
- To: Peter Baumann <p.baumann@jacobs-university.de>, Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
- Cc: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>, SDW WG <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Peter, On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 2:58 PM, Peter Baumann wrote: > On 05/27/15 10:37, Svensson, Lars wrote: > > 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 > > > > FWIW, in OGC we use MIME types indeed for the coverage formats (such as > "image/tiff") OK, so I guess there is no need to negotiatio profiles/shapes there. Best, Lars
Received on Friday, 29 May 2015 18:44:22 UTC