Re: UCR issue 30: missing requirement

Hi Frans-

I'm not sure that your option (1) covers the terms used for 'vague' (or,
more accurately, _relative_) spatial relationships. I think that we might
want to refer to the location of a post box unambiguously, based on it's
position within a topological (road) network; e.g. 150 from the junction of
roads A and B in the direction of [etc.] ... the junction (a node in the
network) might have a geometric position (e.g. collected by a surveyor with
GPS), but the position of street furniture may be recorded using relative
positions.

Does that help?

Jeremy

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 at 13:17 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:

> 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.
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>
>