Re: UCR issue 30: missing requirement

Rachel and Jeremy, thank you for helping us solve this case.

So this is about being able to use colloquial terms for both location and
spatial relationships. It seems to me that the first part, colloquial terms
for location is basically covered by the Spatial vagueness requirement
<http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#SpatialVagueness>.
Interestingly enough, this requirement has not been related to the Best
Practices requirement.

What we could do is:

   1. Rephrase the spatial vagueness requirement a bit to make it clearly
   cover examples like “the midlands”, “town centre”, how different people
   define “London”.
   2. Relate the spatial vagueness requirement to the Locating a Thing use
   case
   <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#LocatingAThing>
   and the Best Practices deliverable

For the requirement to be able to use colloquial terms for spatial
relationships we could either expand the definition of the Spatial
vagueness requirement, or add a new requirement, so that we end up with
separate requirements for spatial vagueness for locations and spatial
vagueness for relationships. I would favour the first option, to keep
things simple, and because there is of plenty of overlap between the
requirements.

Regards,
Frans


2015-10-13 18:03 GMT+02:00 Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>:

> Hi-
>
> Rachel is correct; 'Locating a thing' [1] (provided by @eparsons) is the
> source of this requirement. The description provided in her message is
> accurate. Ed also uses phrases like "upstairs", "where I left it" etc.
>
> It's not about geocoding; it's about relating position in human terms ...
> all about context.
>
> FWIW, there are already some reasonable models from OGC about describing
> relative positioning - usually related to position within a topological
> network offset from a node in that network (e.g. position of signage on a
> railway, position of a lamp post on a street etc.)
>
> Jeremy
>
> [1]:
> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#LocatingAThing
>
>
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 at 17:37 Heaven, Rachel E. <reh@bgs.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> <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.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>