Re: Issue 27: correction of the description of the Coverage in Linked Data deliverable

2015-10-22 8:36 GMT+02:00 Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de>:

> On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 5:34 PM, Frans Knibbe wrote:
>
> > Another thing: I would like to note that outside of the description of
> the
> > deliverable the charter contains a definition of coverage:
> >  “The term coverage is used to describe a feature whose properties vary
> with
> > space and / or time; for example, the variation of air temperature
> within a
> > given geographic region, or the variation of flow rate with time at a
> > hydrological monitoring station.”
>
> > Is that definition acceptable for everyone? I wondered about that because
> > the discussion also was about the definition of the term 'coverage'.
>
> Just to make sure I understand the terminology correctly: Is the "feature"
> you refer to in the above definition the same kind of feature we discuss in
> the "real-world-thing vs. feature" thread? If so, is it the properties of
> the feature or those of the real-world-thing that change?
>

An interesting question :-)

I did not write the charter, but my personal interpretation is that
'feature' in this case means a thing, a resource. But perhaps people with a
strong OGC perspective might read it differently.

Perhaps we should ask the question: Does it really matter if the definition
in the charter is open to slightly different interpretations? Could people
really get the wrong idea of our understanding of what a coverage is? The
charter is probably not the place to have formal and airtight definitions,
but it should not contain misinformation.

I assume that formal and unambiguous definition will be one of the first
results of the work for the Coverage in Linked Data deliverable.

Regards,
Frans


> Best,
>
> Lars
>