Re: BP editors draft ready for review

Andrea & Clemens - thanks for your comments.

Andrea - sorry you won't be joining us. Thanks for the +1

Clemens - see you soon. Adding the LDProxy example to BP4 would be
fantastic :-)

Jeremy

On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 at 11:39 Clemens Portele <
portele@interactive-instruments.de> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> on my way to London I have been reading the new draft. Good work!
>
> I have made some edits in a branch (that I will publish later) and list
> some comments for discussion (in London or in 2017) below. I can add GitHub
> issues, if this is preferred.
>
> a - General: The scope states "this document provides advice on: the
> choice of ontology and data format to be used when encoding spatial data;
> …". Since many application schemas exist that use types defined by the ISO
> 19100 standards and GML data compliant to these application schemas are
> made accessible in SDIs, what would be the advice regarding mapping the
> types in the ISO schemas to other representations, in particular RDF and
> JSON? For RDF probably the work on the ontologies (sensors, time,
> coverages) will help, but should we provide more explicit guidance
> somewhere to be consistent with the scope? 13.5 is not complete at the
> moment.
>
> b - BP1: Chapter 9 states as the first reason why SDIs are not enough that
> the SDI catalog services are insufficient for the general web (which I
> agree with). But then the first (!) BP is to provide metadata in the
> dataset metadata in these catalog services (or similar services for DCAT).
> Seems a bit inconsistent to me.
>
> c - BP1: The approach to implementation is heavy on DCAT, but does not
> mention, for example, schema.org or other ways to represent such
> metadata. Isn’t DCAT mainly the ontology used by a certain community just
> like ISO 19115 is the ontology typically used by the geo-community?
>
> d - BP2: It would help, if there would be more specific advice how to
> represent the UoM of a quantity value. Will the SOSA work provide this for
> RDF representations?
>
> e - BP3: As axis order has been and is a common issue, maybe mention it
> somewhere and include a reference to the OGC Axis Order policy?
>
> f - BP4: I could add ldproxy.net as another example and address issue 447
> based on our experiences.
>
> g - BP4: Currently this is mainly about the spatial things, but the
> dataset metadata should also be indexed.
>
> h - BP4: Sitemaps only work for small datasets.
>
> i - BP7: The paragraphs in "Possible Approach to Implementation" are
> confusing. First the reuse of authoritative identifiers is promoted in the
> first paragraph and then it is explained why this is in general not a good
> idea. Why not mainly promote the "mint your own URI and reference the other
> source" approach and maybe mention the reuse for special cases where it
> makes sense (whatever these are)?
>
> j - 13.5: Why only list RDF vocabs in the note not also other vocabs like
> 19107, WKT, GML, GeoJSON, etc?
>
> k - BP8: Referring to "WGS 84" as a CRS is a bit dangerous. Many CRSs in
> the EPSG register either have "WGS 84" as name or as part of the name.
> Maybe clarify up-front that in the document, when talking about "WGS 84" as
> a CRS, it actually means http://www.opengis.net/def/crs/EPSG/0/4326 (or
> which other variant, lat/long/height, long/lat, x/y/z, etc).
>
> l - BP10: The "Possible Approach to Implementation" is very RDF oriented
> (see comment j above).
>
> m - BP13: "protocol independent"? HTTP is a protocol, too!
>
> Best regards,
> Clemens
>
>
> On 13 Dec 2016, at 21:09, Linda van den Brink <L.vandenBrink@geonovum.nl>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> The BP editors draft[1] is ready to be reviewed. As you know we've planned
> a vote to release a new WD, this Friday.
>
> You should re-read BP4, 6, 7 and 11. These have been significantly
> updated.
>
> Minor changes include the addition to section 9 of a list of most
> important BPs when starting from an existing SDI, change of a few BP titles
> to include the word spatial
>
> For all changes since the last WD see [2] (changes after October are new).
>
> [1]: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/
>
> [2]: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/commits/gh-pages/bp
>
> Linda
>
>
>