RE: UCR ISSUE-31: is the validation requirement in scope?

Frans,

I think spatial data is a slightly special case – but so are other data domains being used by ‘naïve’ users.

If the data points to a location that appears precise (and therefore potentially accurate) but is not because of an inappropriate datum or CRS, the consumer may want to check that the location is accurate enough, but not have enough knowledge to do it themselves.

This is quite ubiquitous.

I suppose examples from other domains could be:

1.       Requesting a music track of ‘Sway’ and expecting Dean Martin, but actually getting the Mucho Mambo version – technically ‘Sway’ but not what is expected – but rather obvious to many consumers, though perhaps not to someone from the far East. Easily fixed with a bit of metadata (“original recording”).

2.       Searching for medical information. This may be akin to spatial – difficult, complex and a second opinion may be required.

Fixing/validating locations can be highly technical, specialized and perhaps difficult. Is this enough to justify inclusion?

HTH, Chris

From: Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 4:03 PM
To: SDW WG Public List
Subject: UCR ISSUE-31: is the validation requirment in scope?

Yes, it's the official issue-31<https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/31> thread!
I am sorry it took a while, but it is here now, and with this thread we should be able to quickly resolve the issue.

It is about the existing Validation requirement<http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#Validation> (if the link drops you in the wrong place, you can use the table of contents). The BP team fairly wondered if this requirement is in scope. After all, the need to validate data on the web could well exist for non-spatial data.

Would it be possible to give an example of why validating spatial data could be a special case, thereby justifying the inclusion of this requirement?

Thanks in advance,
Frans