- From: Peter Baumann <p.baumann@jacobs-university.de>
- Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 20:48:00 +0200
- To: "Svensson, Lars" <L.Svensson@dnb.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>
Lars- On 05/29/15 20:43, Svensson, Lars wrote: > 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. right, I don't think so. If future shows a need then contents negotiation can be extended using the straightforward (and quite powerful) methods available. Up to now, however, I have not heard of anyone requiring this, and in particular cannot see any need for profiles. -Peter > > Best, > > Lars > -- Dr. Peter Baumann - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann mail: p.baumann@jacobs-university.de tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793) www.rasdaman.com, mail: baumann@rasdaman.com tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882 "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)
Received on Friday, 29 May 2015 18:51:17 UTC