Re: My comments on the BP

Hi, Jeremy,

On 12/01/2016 18:01, Jeremy Tandy wrote:
> 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.

Thanks!

>  > 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.

Agreed.

As I said in my mail, it's unrealistic to fix the terminology in the 
first BP draft (and I can live with that). However, we could at least 
add a description of what we mean with SpatialThing the first time it is 
used, as done for "feature".

Cheers,

Andrea

Received on Tuesday, 12 January 2016 17:20:15 UTC