Re: UCR issue 30: missing requirement

Hi Josh,

The 'bottom of the hillside' example was included because it is probably
also imprecise as a location: which part of a hillside is the bottom
exactly? Or which part of a hill is the top, for that matter?

Anyway, my feeling is that with the distinction between imprecise locations
and imprecise spatial relationships the requirement is precise enough :-).
The phrasing of the requirement does not stand in the way of a solution
providing a higher granularity of classes of imprecision/fuzziness.

Greetings,
Frans

On 17 August 2016 at 15:10, Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
wrote:

> Can we distinguish between qualitative relationships such "bottom of the
> hillside” which are as precise as the features being referenced,  and fuzzy
> ones such as “near the hillside” that explicitly use imprecise
> relationships?
>
> Josh
>
> On Aug 17, 2016, at 9:00 AM, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
>
> Dear group members, especially the BP editors,
>
> It would be great if we can resolve this sleeping issue
> <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/30> before the next PWD of
> the UC&R document. To summarise the issue, it seems clear what the
> requirement is: there is a need to be able to use vague/informal/colloquial
> expressions to refer to either spatial things or spatial relationships.
>
> I still think the easiest solution is to change the existing Spatial
> vagueness
> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#SpatialVagueness>
> requirement a bit. The core requirement would then be something like "It
> should be possible to use vague or informal expressions to indicate
> locations or spatial relationships". That requirement could be followed by
> some examples:
>
> for locations:
>
>    - at the bottom of the hillside
>    - downtown Los Angeles
>    - London (has multiple definitions, so just the name is not precise)
>    - the south west boundary of the Roman Empire
>
> for spatial relationships:
>
>    - near
>    - across the street from
>    - upstairs
>    - at walking distance from
>
> What do you think?
>
> Regards,
> Frans
>
> On 20 October 2015 at 14:04, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2015-10-16 11:15 GMT+02:00 Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Hi Frans-
>>>
>>> I'm not sure that your option (1) covers the terms used for 'vague' (or,
>>> more accurately, _relative_) spatial relationships. I think that we might
>>> want to refer to the location of a post box unambiguously, based on it's
>>> position within a topological (road) network; e.g. 150 from the junction of
>>> roads A and B in the direction of [etc.] ... the junction (a node in the
>>> network) might have a geometric position (e.g. collected by a surveyor with
>>> GPS), but the position of street furniture may be recorded using relative
>>> positions.
>>>
>>
>> We already have a requirement for being able to use spatial
>> relationships, see the Spatial relationships requirement
>> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#SpatialRelationships>.
>> If that requirement is met, it should be possible to express the location
>> of a post box relative to some topographic or topological point, wouldn't
>> you say?
>>
>> However, the ability to be vague about relative positioning does not
>> seem to have been addressed yet. One might want to say that a post box is
>> close to the butcher shop, or over the road from the bakery.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Frans
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Does that help?
>>>
>>> Jeremy
>>>
>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 at 13:17 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rachel and Jeremy, thank you for helping us solve this case.
>>>>
>>>> So this is about being able to use colloquial terms for both location
>>>> and spatial relationships. It seems to me that the first part, colloquial
>>>> terms for location is basically covered by the Spatial vagueness
>>>> requirement
>>>> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#SpatialVagueness>.
>>>> Interestingly enough, this requirement has not been related to the Best
>>>> Practices requirement.
>>>>
>>>> What we could do is:
>>>>
>>>>    1. Rephrase the spatial vagueness requirement a bit to make it
>>>>    clearly cover examples like “the midlands”, “town centre”, how different
>>>>    people define “London”.
>>>>    2. Relate the spatial vagueness requirement to the Locating a Thing
>>>>    use case
>>>>    <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#LocatingAThing>
>>>>    and the Best Practices deliverable
>>>>
>>>> For the requirement to be able to use colloquial terms for spatial
>>>> relationships we could either expand the definition of the Spatial
>>>> vagueness requirement, or add a new requirement, so that we end up with
>>>> separate requirements for spatial vagueness for locations and spatial
>>>> vagueness for relationships. I would favour the first option, to keep
>>>> things simple, and because there is of plenty of overlap between the
>>>> requirements.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Frans
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2015-10-13 18:03 GMT+02:00 Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi-
>>>>>
>>>>> Rachel is correct; 'Locating a thing' [1] (provided by @eparsons) is
>>>>> the source of this requirement. The description provided in her message is
>>>>> accurate. Ed also uses phrases like "upstairs", "where I left it" etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not about geocoding; it's about relating position in human terms
>>>>> ... all about context.
>>>>>
>>>>> FWIW, there are already some reasonable models from OGC about
>>>>> describing relative positioning - usually related to position within a
>>>>> topological network offset from a node in that network (e.g. position of
>>>>> signage on a railway, position of a lamp post on a street etc.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequire
>>>>> ments.html#LocatingAThing
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 at 17:37 Heaven, Rachel E. <reh@bgs.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Frans
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looks like this is from the “Locating a thing” use case,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Working_Use_Cases#
>>>>>> Locating_a_thing...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It’s about vernacular geography :  human terms for relative spatial
>>>>>> positioning (“upstairs”, “over the road from”) and human concepts of places
>>>>>> (“the midlands”, “town centre”, how different people define “London”).
>>>>>> These extents are usually vague and do not match official authoritative
>>>>>> boundaries, so you can’t geocode them accurately, if at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It will also be very relevant to harvesting crowd sourced data
>>>>>> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Working_Use_Cases#
>>>>>> Crowd_sourced_earthquake_observation_information_.
>>>>>> 28Best_Practice.2CSSN.29
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rachel
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:* Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
>>>>>> *Sent:* 09 October 2015 14:11
>>>>>> *To:* SDW WG Public List; Kerry Taylor; Jeremy Tandy
>>>>>> *Subject:* UCR issue 30: missing requirement
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the thread for discussion of UCR issue 30
>>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/30>, the Case of the
>>>>>> Mysterious Missing Requirement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The current description reads: '*see " relative (spatial)
>>>>>> relationships based on context e.g. my location [expressing location and
>>>>>> places in human terms] " from *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidated_Narratives#linking_data
>>>>>> <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidated_Narratives#linking_data>'. Jeremy
>>>>>> might know what use case it came from.'*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To me is not exactly clear yet what the requirement could be.
>>>>>> Resolving location names in human terms to geometry is called geocoding and
>>>>>> is a well established practice. Could this be about the need for having
>>>>>> human language equivalents for spatial relations? I can see that would be a
>>>>>> benefit for finding spatial data using a search engine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we find the related use case(s) we will probably get a better idea
>>>>>> of what the missing requirement could look like,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Frans
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>> This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is
>>>>>> subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this
>>>>>> email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt
>>>>>> from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in
>>>>>> an electronic records management system.
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>