Re: The SSN requirement 'Reference external vocabularies'

2015-10-08 13:46 GMT+02:00 Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>:

> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Jon Blower <j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> > when users come along and get told to ‘use something convenient here’ or
> > ‘use whatever you like’, they understandably get frustrated. So the
> > challenge for SDWWG – particularly in the Best Practices space – is the
> > extent to which we want to tie down or fill in some of the stubs.
> >
> >
> > Agreed, I think this is absolutely key. The Linked Data idea of “small
> > pieces loosely coupled” is all very well, but at the moment (from the
> user
> > point of view) it seems like “small pieces widely scattered”.
> >
> > If we can agree on the “best” (or at least good-quality) vocabularies and
> > ontologies to adopt for specific purposes it would be a big step forward.
>
> +1. This is indeed what our BPs should do.
>

I agree. The principle of delegation is very good, and I am glad we are on
our guard with respect to the intended scope of vocabularies. But for
people to work with spatial data on the web a complete set of tools is
needed. So if there are duplicate tools the best one should be recommended
and if there are missing tools they should be supplied.

However, that is a very general principle for the BP deliverable. So far it
seems there is little need to make a requirement for being able to use
modular semantics in SSN explicit, especially since it is a well know
design principle, it is already in SSN and it is mentioned in the charter.

Regards,
Frans


>
> Andrea
>