Re: BP restructuring: Data Quality and Versioning sections

Hi,

I'd like to look at the BP to address its basic implementability for the
cases where machine-readable metadata is needed for attributes - as is the
common case for spatial, but also  more generally applicable cases (CRS,
UoM, Precision).  I'm trying to work out when the dust has settled enough
from the restructure to make change proposals. Reading it through I am
struck by a few concerns that it may be harder if left too long...

In particular I dont feel sufficient acknowledgement is made of the basic
issue - metadata is necessary - but on the Web metadata about datasets is
less important than being able to interpret data you get back from it, or
the access methods you need to get it. Fine to have a section about
traditional dataset metadata and point to geo-dcat ( a nice strong
recommendation that is useful).  Less good IMHO is to make references back
to this, implicitly or explicity as a preferred mechanism - for most of the
Web its a corner case - in reality no web developer is likely to find data
and try to automate access and interpretation of a metadata record in an
obscure format (for them XML!)

IMHO we need to have a section about attribute level spatial metadata that
explicitly states it may be embedded in many places - provide some vanilla
statements about choice of appropriate vocabularies and code lists with
URI. This section then refer to dataset metadata _as one option_ and point
to that section, but also provide options for embedding this metadata into
data itself.  We can point back to this every time its relevant, rather
than a dataset-specific metadata section (BP1) or an even vaguer reference
to DCAT which kind of implies it, as its the only place it make sense.

I dont think this is a particularly hard thing to do, but for me its a BP0
 - provide explicit machine-readable  metadata for spatial properties,
where machine-readable includes using a URI identifier for the spatial
property (e.g. geo:latitude), or additional properties using vocab X (can
we recommend one - or reference a note describing an option?) with URI or
embedded data structures.

Every place where a BP demands such annotations, we can point to this, with
its embed-or-describe-with-metadata-record pattern, and achieve greater
flexibility, readability and consistency of practice.

Rob



On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 at 22:58 Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> At this point I welcome more detailed comments on the section in the BP on
> the Spatial Data Quality and Spatial Data Versioning sections.
>
> - http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-dataquality
>
> - http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-dataversioning
>
>
>
> Spatial Data Quality already has some pretty good content, including
> examples, thanks to Andrea who helped me with this.
>
>
>
> Spatial Data Versioning is more drafty. Here I could do with any comments,
> corrections or additions, including feedback on the two issues mentioned in
> the text. Examples are also still missing.
>
>
>
> Linda
>
>
>
> *______________________________________*
>
> *Geonovum*
>
> *Linda van den Brink*
>
> *Adviseur Geo-standaarden*
>
>
>
> *a*: Barchman Wuytierslaan 10, 3818 LH Amersfoort
>
> *p*: Postbus 508, 3800 AM Amersfoort
>
> *t*:  + 31 (0)33 46041 00
>
> *m*: + 31 (0)6 1355 57 92
>
> *e:  *l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl <r.beltman@geonovum.nl>
>
> *i*:  www.geonovum.nl
>
> *tw*: @brinkwoman
>
>
>