Re: Best Practice sub-team call: 14:00 UTC, 20-April-2016

Yes, it would be tough issue. But I am afraid that not addressing the issue
properly will incur much greater costs. Perhaps not on our group, but
certainly on society and the web as a whole. But also within our group
there can be immediate benefits of having a basic spatial ontology. I have
the feeling that many of the problems we are trying to solve are are a
result of the absence of a solid theoretical foundation of the things we
try to work with. We are mostly scratching the surface instead of attacking
the core issues. I think it is likely that if the few core issues are
resolved satisfactorily, many other problems will cease to be problems.

I also think that the undertaking of defining a spatial ontology can be
broken up in consecutive steps. We do not need to finish all those steps in
order to be successful. But we can leave a solid foundation for others to
continue with.

To keep things simple, a first goal could be just to define vector geometry
as a data type. Having just that would solve a lot of interoperability
problems and would clear the way for universal ways of storing and
exchanging spatial data. Humanity has been able to do the same for numbers
and text, and having agreed upon models for those data types makes IT a lot
simpler than it would have been if there was no such agreement.

So a first step could be defining vector geometry as a mathematical
construct, an ordered set of coordinates in some reference system. Much
could be built on top of such a foundation, and even if in the end there
would still be need for different serializations of geometry, it would help
if those serializations share a common base model - going to a more basic
level would achieve interoperability. And if the mathematical foundations
are solid, a lot of derived ways of working with spatial data
(transformations, spatial relationships, topology,...) will be much easier
to set up. And as said before, we would also have a common ground for
geographic geometry and non-geographic geometry, so that we can use methods
from both worlds interchangeably.

Perhaps what has been going on in the area of improving temporal data on
the web can be an example for spatial data. I noticed that when a
mathematical approach to time is adopted, the difference between time
instants and time intervals disappears. On the surface there still is a
difference, but at the core the situation is simpler. At the core, the
concept of time is more unified than all the different expressions that can
be encountered in the wild. I think that the same principle - going to the
core of the matter to make things simpler and more universal - can also be
applied to spatial data.

Regards,
Frans



2016-04-19 1:36 GMT+02:00 <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>:

> +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.
>
>
>
> *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>:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>