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

Re: satellite data as sensor data

From: <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 12:13:20 +0000
To: <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
CC: <allaves@fi.upm.es>, <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4F5A68A9-B35B-4E9E-A080-CC0EBFD8604D@csiro.au>
Ideally, I would expect SSN  to be used to describe a sensor ( and satellite) associated with remotely sensed data, but something else, ie the "coverage"  deliverable, to describe the data , and these would fit neatly together( ie modular).

For this reason, I agree entirely with your suggestions, Frans. I prefer "earth obs...data" over the alternative, but I am not fussy. And it should go in ssn too( although this is more motivated  by my sense of the right solution then it is by any solution-independent notion of requirements) .


On 30 May 2015, at 3:16 am, "Frans Knibbe" <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl<mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>> wrote:

Hi Alejandro,

About the SSN-like representation<http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#SSNLikeRepresentation> requirement ("It should be possible to represent satellite data using the SSN model, including sensor descriptions."):

  *   Can we change the title to something more descriptive like "Earth observation data as sensor data" or "Satellites as sensors"?
  *   It seems this requirement applies to the SSN deliverable too. Shall we add it?
  *   Would it be possible to explain why this would be desirable, in general? (This is one of the examples where I find it hard to refrain from thinking from the Linked Data paradigm, where models/semantics are modular and can be mixed at will)


Frans Knibbe
President Kennedylaan 1
1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)

T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl<mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
Received on Saturday, 30 May 2015 12:14:11 UTC

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