- From: Heaven, Rachel E. <reh@bgs.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 16:37:53 +0000
- To: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@acm.org>, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
- Message-ID: <DB3PR06MB06348BE64D8197F19791BDE9EF340@DB3PR06MB0634.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Frans Looks like this is from the “Locating a thing” use case, https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Working_Use_Cases#Locating_a_thing... It’s about vernacular geography : human terms for relative spatial positioning (“upstairs”, “over the road from”) and human concepts of places (“the midlands”, “town centre”, how different people define “London”). These extents are usually vague and do not match official authoritative boundaries, so you can’t geocode them accurately, if at all. It will also be very relevant to harvesting crowd sourced data https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Working_Use_Cases#Crowd_sourced_earthquake_observation_information_.28Best_Practice.2CSSN.29 Cheers, Rachel From: Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl] Sent: 09 October 2015 14:11 To: SDW WG Public List; Kerry Taylor; Jeremy Tandy Subject: UCR issue 30: missing requirement Hello. This is the thread for discussion of UCR issue 30<http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/30>, the Case of the Mysterious Missing Requirement. The current description reads: 'see " relative (spatial) relationships based on context e.g. my location [expressing location and places in human terms] " from https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidated_Narratives#linking_data'. Jeremy might know what use case it came from.' To me is not exactly clear yet what the requirement could be. Resolving location names in human terms to geometry is called geocoding and is a well established practice. Could this be about the need for having human language equivalents for spatial relations? I can see that would be a benefit for finding spatial data using a search engine. If we find the related use case(s) we will probably get a better idea of what the missing requirement could look like, Regards, Frans ________________________________ This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system. ________________________________
Received on Friday, 9 October 2015 16:38:26 UTC