Re: Rewrite of the BP narrative [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi Jeremy,


You do not have an enviable task. Well done for persevering!



@All,


I note that these user stories are from the perspective of the data publisher and to be honest using concepts that are alien to most current data publishers.


Perhaps we can add some complementary perspectives from the point of view of the end users of the published data and of how they would utilise that data. In many (perhaps most) cases, for this type of situation, I suspect that end users will need to undertake some kind of spatial analysis for their own purposes, probably using very specialised applications and processes that have evolved over many years. Most of these users will similarly find many of the concepts expressed to be alien. Most of these users will probably not be web developers.


I'm personally at a loss to understand why we are trying to invent data formats and data services when we have perfectly adequate representations available now as 'Best Practice'. In the case of multi-dimensional array data described in several of these examples, we have formats like netCDF and services like WCS.


Why do we want to reinvent the wheel?


What is it about the current approaches that aren't working?


Perhaps this is where we can target the 'Best Practice'. Use what is good and can be effectively used now. And envision a better way for the aspects that aren't working well.


Just my 2c as a frustrated W3C SDWWG observer trying to make sense of this from 'data publisher' and 'spatial data analyst user' perspectives.



<Rant>

I can see a lot of potential from Linked Data and Data Semantics approaches, that is why I'm investing time with this working group. But I don't want to see the good work from many people over many years disregarded out of hand with no clear rationale provided.


This is supposed to be a joint W3C and OGC working group, but I'm personally not seeing much attempt at reusing the good aspects that have come from the OGC community.


By way of a reality check: I recently attended our national spatial information forum. This is a cross disciplinary and technology neutral forum. Most people had a reasonable understanding of open spatial standards and services, but very, very few had any understanding of the Linked Data/Data Semantics concepts that we're discussing here. When discussed in presentations it was typically referred to as a research concept that may possibly have some relevance at some time in the future.


We have an opportunity here to make a real difference with Linked Data and Data Semantics, just don't throw the baby out with the bath water please.


I need good, pragmatic, approaches that allow me to work with federated, consistent, data services to underpin global analysis of a number of inter-related scientific domains. I need to understand the semantic nuances within the federated data services, the semantic relationships in the concepts between domains, together with the need for a very good understanding of data quality and data provenance. So I'm not just after a way of finding linked resources, I need to be able to analyse them and exploit the rich information contained within. I cannot see that I will be able to do this effectively with just using current approaches, but we do appear to be on the right path when we start complementing them Linked Data and Data Semantics approaches.


Spatial Information is not a simple concept. People undertake substantial tertiary study to understand the basics.


</Rant>    ...with apologies.




Bruce



________________________________
From: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 April 2016 7:55 AM
To: SDW WG Public List
Subject: Rewrite of the BP narrative

All-

In working through ACTION 162<https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/162> I've taken a good look at the narrative we plan to use for the Best Practice document. We needed to include tangible examples the we can elaborate on ...

I offer a second version of the narrative [1] that tries to do this.

You'll find 9 discrete parts, each of which can be elaborated with detailed examples.

This doesn't represent consensus between the editors as we've not had the opportunity for wider discussion. However, I wanted to share this with the wider group prior to the plenary call tomorrow.

Comments welcome - even if it's "back to the drawing board please".

Regards, Jeremy

[1]: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Narrative_2