Re: My comments on the BP

Andrea ... responding to your comments ...

> 1. I agree with Frans [1] that we should clarify what we mean with
"spatial data", and that "geospatial" / "geographic(al)" data are just a
subclass of them.

Added your comment to ISSUE 206 <https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/206>

> 2. In relation to point (1), the term "geospatial" is frequently used
just after having talked about "spatial data" (e.g., when talking about
"geospatial experts"). If not clarified, a reader is very likely to
(wrongly) infer that "spatial" = "geospatial".

Ditto.

> 3. The notion of "feature" is clearly defined in Section 6.1 of the BP
as an information resource describing a real-world thing with
(geo)spatial characteristics. However, the actual semantics of the
notion of "SpatialThing", as used in the BP, is ambiguous. Is a spatial
thing just a real-world thing with spatial characteristics? Or it can
also be an information resource with spatial characteristics (e.g., what
is represented in an image file)? And, if this is the case, can a
feature be a spatial thing?

I've added this point and subsequent discussion to ISSUE 208
<https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/208> ... I agree that this needs fixing,
but it's not a trivial edit & requires some thought. Let's discuss at
tomorrow's WG call whether we need to resolve this prior to FPWD.

Thanks, Jeremy

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 at 17:34 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:

> 2016-01-08 17:23 GMT+01:00 Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>:
>
>> Hi, Frans.
>>
>> On 08/01/2016 16:55, Frans Knibbe wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Would it be possible to skip trying to define features and spatial
>>> things altogether? I think it only leads to confusion (and we all know
>>> that ultimately leads to the Dark Side). Trying to define what things,
>>> features, real world objects, etc. are can lead to deep philosophical
>>> abysses and put people off.
>>>
>>
>> Fine. But then we shouldn't use at all those terms.
>
>
> Yes (+1). If we don't use the terms we do not have to define them. A
> win-win situation :-)
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Andrea
>>
>
>