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

On Thursday, October 22, 2015 11:21 AM, Frans Knibbe wrote:

> 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.

No, it probably doesn't matter.

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

Works for me.

Best,

Lars

Received on Thursday, 22 October 2015 17:30:34 UTC