- From: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 10:20:47 +0200
- To: Simon.Cox@csiro.au, frans.knibbe@geodan.nl, jeremy.tandy@gmail.com
- Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
On 19/04/2016 1:36, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote: > +1 for considering this openly. > > It is probably the issue that the wider community would most expect to > see dealt with in the WG. However, it is definitely a tough issue, and > I’m sceptical that it is possible or even desirable to imagine that a > single solution is necessary. I share Simon's concerns. What for sure we can do is to group existing solutions (although they are not filling all the gaps) based on the relevant use cases. So, depending on what you would like to do, you're given a number of options. BTW, this could also help understand where minor changes to existing vocabularies can address open issues. E.g., DWBP's DQV [1] includes now examples on how to model spatial resolution; GeoDCAT-AP has a very lightweight solution for modelling the CRS(s) used in datasets / services (basically, just by using Dublin Core & SKOS); etc. In this context, the "agreed spatial ontology" could then be a set of best practices on how to re-use consistently and in an interoperable way existing solutions. The question is whether this should be integral part of the BP (which already includes the relevant use cases), or a different document. Does this make sense? Andrea ---- [1]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html#ExpressDatasetAccuracyPrecision [2]https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/CITnet/stash/projects/ODCKAN/repos/iso-19139-to-dcat-ap/browse/documentation/Mappings.md#mapping-crs > *From:*Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl] > *Sent:* Monday, 18 April 2016 11:42 PM > *To:* Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> > *Cc:* SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org> > *Subject:* Re: Best Practice sub-team call: 14:00 UTC, 20-April-2016 > > Hello Jeremy, > > Could this meeting be an opportunity to discuss the 'agreed spatial > ontology' mentioned in the charter (also see this e-mail thread > <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Mar/0057.html>)? > I feel it could be the most crucial contribution to the data web our > group could make, so it would be good to have more clarity on whether > and how we wish to pursue this. > > Regards, > > Frans > > 2016-04-18 12:09 GMT+02:00 Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com > <mailto:jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>>: > > All. For those participating in the Best Practices sub-team, the > next meeting is scheduled for 14:00 UTC this Wednesday (20-April). > > Preliminary agenda is here: > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:BP-Telecon20160420 > > Please advise if you want to add anything. If you can't make the > meeting, please record your 'regrets', else we'll see you there. > > Regards - Jeremy, Linda and Payam. > -- Andrea Perego, Ph.D. Scientific / Technical Project Officer European Commission DG JRC Institute for Environment & Sustainability Unit H06 - Digital Earth & Reference Data Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262 21027 Ispra VA, Italy https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2016 08:21:55 UTC