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

Sorry everyone - Late Apologies in the middle of a mad two weeks of
travel...

Ed

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, 23:30 Jeremy Tandy, <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> wrote:

> Frans - thanks for the suggestion. Simon, Andrea - thanks for discussion.
> Certainly a thorny issue to resolve, but one that we need to address openly
> and transparently. Even if a single solution cannot be found, we _will_
> need to document the reasons why a single solution is not possible - which
> will help us establish [best] practices for when and where each of the
> multiple solutions should be used. Of course, life would be easier with one
> solution; so we should begin by striving for that.
>
> If we're going to start from mathematical foundations, this sounds like a
> rigorous piece of work. Would it be best published as an independent Note?
> (the WG has the remit to do so if we see fit).
>
> I've updated the agenda [1] to include the proposed topic (see below).
> Frans - can you take the lead on this subject please? Given that this is a
> massive topic, we won't finish the discussion in one meeting! So I will
> time-box the discussion to 30-mins to allow for time to discuss other items.
>
> *Part 1 (30-mins): establishing an "agreed spatial ontology"*
>
>    - *[Frans] problem statement*
>    - *solution criteria - what do we need the "agreed spatial ontology"
>    to do?*
>    - *prior art - what can we learn from (and where are the overlaps and
>    gaps in existing work)*
>    - *define plan of work - how do we move forward; who will lead?*
>
>
> [1]:
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:BP-Telecon20160420#Main_agenda
>
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 at 11:57 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --

*Ed Parsons *FRGS
Geospatial Technologist, Google

Google Voice +44 (0)20 7881 4501
www.edparsons.com @edparsons