- From: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 19:11:24 +0100
- To: Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>
- Cc: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
The Wiktionary may help here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/data#English Quoting: [[ Usage notes This word is more often used as an uncountable noun with a singular verb than as a plural noun with singular datum. ]] Andrea On 12/01/2016 18:50, Bill Roberts wrote: > not perhaps our most important issue, but my opinion is that 'data' > reads most naturally as a singular word - probably because it's often > thought of as a non-countable noun, like water - you can have 'some > data', but few people would say 'I have 100 data'. > > Some people like to be more faithful to its Latin roots and have plural > 'data' and singular 'datum' - but use of 'datum' is very rare in English > (UK English anyway). 'Data point' is probably a more common way to > refer to a datum. > > So probably either approach is acceptable if we are self-consistent, but > I would vote for singular 'data'. > > Bill > > > > > > On 12 January 2016 at 16:54, Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu > <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>> wrote: > >> > 2. I notice the word 'data' is taken as singular. That looks >> funny to me, but I know there are differences of opinion in that >> respect. Do W3C or OGC have a recommendation on whether to treat >> 'data' as a singular or plural noun? >> >> As a native English speaker (OK, that doesn't mean much) "data" >> looks and sounds correct. >> >> @phila ... any comment from W3C perspective; I know I'm supposed >> to write in US-english :-) > > To the best of my knowledge data is plural, datum is the singular form. > > Krzysztof > > > > On 01/12/2016 08:44 AM, Jeremy Tandy wrote: >> Hi Frans. Thanks for your commentary ... responses below. >> >> @lvdbrink ... can you comment on number #4? Also, can you consider >> a redraft of Section 2 (see points #7 and #8 below) and the >> opening of section 6.1 (see point #11). >> >> > 1. (already discussed in the teleconference) The introduction or >> scope section could do with an explanation of how the document >> relates to the description of the Best Practices deliverable in >> the charter, especially the first and last bullet points. >> >> See PR 203 <https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/203> (already merged) >> ... hopefully this does the trick. >> >> > 2. I notice the word 'data' is taken as singular. That looks >> funny to me, but I know there are differences of opinion in that >> respect. Do W3C or OGC have a recommendation on whether to treat >> 'data' as a singular or plural noun? >> >> As a native English speaker (OK, that doesn't mean much) "data" >> looks and sounds correct. >> >> @phila ... any comment from W3C perspective; I know I'm supposed >> to write in US-english :-) >> >> > 3.In paragraph 1.1 discoverability and accessibility are listed as >> the key problems. I think interoperability (between different >> publications of spatial data and between spatial data and other >> types of data) could be listed as a third main problem; many >> requirements have to do with interoperability. >> >> Created new issue for discussion: ISSUE 205 >> <https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/205> >> >> > 4. section 1.1: problems that are experienced by different >> groups (commercial operators, geospatial experts, web developers, >> public sector) are described. I get the impression that those >> problems are the only or main problems that are experienced by a >> certain group, but I don't think that is the case. Perhaps the >> listed problems could be marked as examples? Or the list of >> problems per group could be expanded? >> >> Indeed- the list of problems is not exhaustive, only illustrative. >> As an introduction I felt that this reads OK. @lvdbrink - wdyt? >> >> > 5.secion 1:1 “we've adopted a Linked Data approach as the underlying >> principle of the best practices ”: Such a statement might drive >> away people that for some reason resist the idea of Linked Data, >> or in general don't like to have to adopt a new unknown paradigm. >> It also looks like the WG was biased in identifying best practices >> (Linked Data or bust). How about stating that upon inspection of >> requirements and current problems and solutions concepts from the >> Linked Data paradigm transpired to be most applicable? Or perhaps >> Linked Data does not need to be mentioned at all.... Requirements >> like linkability, discoverability and interoperability >> automatically lead to recommending using HTTP(S) URIs and common >> semantics. >> >> The WG has agreed on several occasions (including F2F at >> Nottingham) that we would "adopt the linked data approach" because >> we feel this is the best way to surface spatial data on the web. >> Rereading the BP text, I can see how a bias might be taken. I've >> reworded as follows ... >> >> "Analysis of the requirements derived from scenarios that describe >> how spatial data is commonly published and used on the Web (as >> documented in [[UCR]]) indicates that, in contrast to the workings >> of a typical SDI, the <a >> href="<http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/data>http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/data">Linked >> Data</a> approach is most appropriate for publishing and using >> spatial data on the Web. Linked Data provides a foundation to many >> of the best practices in this document." >> >> Hope that works for you. >> >> > 6. I think an explanation of the term 'spatial data' should be >> somewhere very high up in the document (abstract and/or >> introduction), especially that spatial <> geographic (geographical >> data is a subset of spatial data) >> >> Agreed. New issue added to the document at beginning of Intro. >> ISSUE 206 <https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/206> >> >> > 7. Section 2: There seems to be overlap with description of user >> groups in the introduction (1.1). This leads (or could lead) to >> duplicate information. Why not just mention in the introduction >> that there are multiple audiences and that they are described in >> section 2? >> >> Agreed. New issue added. ISSUE 207 >> <https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/207> >> >> > 8. Section 2: I wonder if the three groups that are described >> cover all audience types. Some more I can think of are [...] >> >> Good point. Added toISSUE 207 >> <https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/207> as additional copy for a >> potential redraft of section 2. >> >> > 9. Section 3: “SDW focuses on exposing the individual; the >> entities, the SpatialThings, within a spatial dataset ”. That >> seems to exclude spatial metadata, which is an important subject >> in SDW. >> >> Agreed. Now, referencing the deliverables from the charter, the >> Scope states: "The use of metadata to complement spatial data". >> >> > 10.“Can be tested by machines and/or data consumers ”: I consider >> data consumers to be humans or machines. In fact, it could be used >> as a useful way of avoiding having to write ''humans or machines' >> each time. Most best practices should benefit both humans and >> machines. Only in some cases the distinction is meaningful. >> >> Reworded to: "Compliance with each best practice in this document >> can be tested by programmatically and/or by human inspection." >> >> > 11.6.1: Is the discussion about features, information resources and >> real world things really necessary? I find it slightly confusing >> and I can imagine other will too. Why not just say that if you >> want spatial data to be referenceable on the web you need to use >> URIs? Just that makes a lot of sense and could be less confusing. >> >> @lvdbrink has attempted to capture the discussion that occurred >> during the Sapporo F2F; this discussion certainly had value at the >> time. I'm wary of reducing the context to the single statement you >> suggest but agree that it's not currently straight forward. We may >> also want to talk about the difference between Features >> (information resources) and Spatial Things (the resources >> described by the information) and the fact that in the end, the >> distinction is often not helpful. >> >> I've added a new issue to capture this point. ISSUE 208 >> <https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/208> >> >> > 12. Best practice 3: I notice best practices 1 and 2 are phrased >> as solutions or recommendations . I think it is a good idea to try >> to do that for all best practices. So instead of “Working with >> data that lacks globally unique identifiers for entity-level >> resources” one could write “make spatial relationships explicit” >> >> See ISSUE 193 <https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/193> that echoes >> your sentiment for BP style. That said, your suggested text misses >> the intended point. There's more content needed for BP3 (and >> perhaps a major redraft?) as stated in ISSUE 102 >> <https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/102> ... the concern is not so >> much making spatial relationships explicit, but what to do if your >> data doesn't use URIs. How do you convert from locally scoped >> identifier to URI? >> >> > 13.I appreciate seeing references to BP requirements from the UCR >> document. But they are placed in the 'Evidence' section of the BP >> template now. Is it appropriate to count requirements derived from >> use cases as evidence of a best practice? I would expect >> references to use cases and requirements to occur in the 'Why' >> section of the template. Or in a template section that is >> especially reserved for requirements, e.g 'Relevant requirements'. >> >> We're following the pro-forma set out by DWBP (for example, see >> <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#identifiersWithinDatasets>http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#identifiersWithinDatasets). >> I'll admit to not thinking too hard about this so far. I have >> raised an issue in the WG tracker (ISSUE 36 >> <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/36>) so that we come >> back to this discussion post release of FPWD. >> >> > 14. Best practice 8: Is this based on theCRS wiki page >> <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Coordinate_Reference_Systems>? >> It seems that WGS84 is recommended. But that is debatable and >> could be considered American-centric. European guidelines >> recommend ETRS89. Also, high-precision is not defined. Also, no >> mention is made of the need to add temporal data if a CRS with an >> increasing error with time (like WGS84) is needed. Also no mention >> is made of how to reconcile local CRSs (as in a building plan) >> with global CRSs. I think CRSs are one of the areas that do >> require some extra standardisation efforts outside of this >> document, but which could be instigated by our working group. >> >> I've added your comment to ISSUE 128 >> <https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/128> which is associated with >> BP 8. We can improve the content post FPWD release. >> >> > 15.BP 10: I would at least recommend to be aware of significant digits. >> >> Added your comment to ISSUE 125 >> <https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/125> >> >> > 16. Appendix C: Why are all UC requirements listed? Why not only >> the BP requirements? That would make a more compact table. >> >> There were many requirements that were not specifically marked for >> the BP- but turned out to be related ... so we captured those. >> Also, while we are working on the BP, it's good to have this full >> list. Perhaps when we're complete, it would make sense to truncate. >> >> Thanks for all your efforts. Jeremy >> >> On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 at 12:30 Frans Knibbe >> <<mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>frans.knibbe@geodan.nl >> <mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> Following are my comments, after reading the BP draft from top >> to bottom: >> >> 1. (already discussed in the teleconference) The introduction >> or scope section could do with an explanation of how the >> document relates to the description of the Best Practices >> deliverable in the charter, especially the first and last >> bullet points. >> 2. I notice the word 'data' is taken as singular. That looks >> funny to me, but I know there are differences of opinion >> in that respect. Do W3C or OGC have a recommendation on >> whether to treat 'data' as a singular or plural noun? >> 3. In paragraph 1.1 discoverability and accessibility are >> listed as the key problems. I think interoperability >> (between different publications of spatial data and >> between spatial data and other types of data) could be >> listed as a third main problem; many requirements have to >> do with interoperability. >> 4. section 1.1: problems that are experienced by different >> groups (commercial operators, geospatial experts, web >> developers, public sector) are described. I get the >> impression that those problems are the only or main >> problems that are experienced by a certain group, but I >> don't think that is the case. Perhaps the listed problems >> could be marked as examples? Or the list of problems per >> group could be expanded? >> 5. secion 1:1 “we've adopted a Linked Data approach as the >> underlying principle of the best practices ”: Such a >> statement might drive away people that for some reason >> resist the idea of Linked Data, or in general don't like >> to have to adopt a new unknown paradigm. It also looks >> like the WG was biased in identifying best practices >> (Linked Data or bust). How about stating that upon >> inspection of requirements and current problems and >> solutions concepts from the Linked Data paradigm >> transpired to be most applicable? Or perhaps Linked Data >> does not need to be mentioned at all.... Requirements like >> linkability, discoverability and interoperability >> automatically lead to recommending using HTTP(S) URIs and >> common semantics. >> 6. I think an explanation of the term 'spatial data' should >> be somewhere very high up in the document (abstract and/or >> introduction), especially that spatial <> geographic >> (geographical data is a subset of spatial data) >> 7. Section 2: There seems to be overlap with description of >> user groups in the introduction (1.1). This leads (or >> could lead) to duplicate information. Why not just mention >> in the introduction that there are multiple audiences and >> that they are described in section 2? >> 8. Section 2: I wonder if the three groups that are described >> cover all audience types. Some more I can think of are >> A) People working with spatial data that is not >> geographical (e.g. SVG, CAD, BIM). >> B) People involved in development of standards that have >> something to do with spatial data on the web . >> C) People involved in development of software that can >> work with spatial data. >> 9. Section 3: “SDW focuses on exposing the individual; the >> entities, the SpatialThings, within a spatial dataset ”. >> That seems to exclude spatial metadata, which is an >> important subject in SDW. >> 10. “Can be tested by machines and/or data consumers ”: I >> consider data consumers to be humans or machines. In fact, >> it could be used as a useful way of avoiding having to >> write ''humans or machines' each time. Most best practices >> should benefit both humans and machines. Only in some >> cases the distinction is meaningful. >> 11. 6.1: Is the discussion about features, information >> resources and real world things really necessary? I find >> it slightly confusing and I can imagine other will too. >> Why not just say that if you want spatial data to be >> referenceable on the web you need to use URIs? Just that >> makes a lot of sense and could be less confusing. >> 12. Best practice 3: I notice best practices 1 and 2 are >> phrased as solutions or recommendations . I think it is a >> good idea to try to do that for all best practices. So >> instead of “Working with data that lacks globally unique >> identifiers for entity-level resources” one could write >> “make spatial relationships explicit” >> 13. I appreciate seeing references to BP requirements from the >> UCR document. But they are placed in the 'Evidence' >> section of the BP template now. Is it appropriate to count >> requirements derived from use cases as evidence of a best >> practice? I would expect references to use cases and >> requirements to occur in the 'Why' section of the >> template. Or in a template section that is especially >> reserved for requirements, e.g 'Relevant requirements'. >> 14. Best practice 8: Is this based on the CRS wiki page >> <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Coordinate_Reference_Systems>? >> It seems that WGS84 is recommended. But that is debatable >> and could be considered American-centric. European >> guidelines recommend ETRS89. Also, high-precision is not >> defined. Also, no mention is made of the need to add >> temporal data if a CRS with an increasing error with time >> (like WGS84) is needed. Also no mention is made of how to >> reconcile local CRSs (as in a building plan) with global >> CRSs. I think CRSs are one of the areas that do require >> some extra standardisation efforts outside of this >> document, but which could be instigated by our working group. >> 15. BP 10: I would at least recommend to be aware of >> significant digits. >> 16. Appendix C: Why are all UC requirements listed? Why not >> only the BP requirements? That would make a more compact >> table. >> >> >> Greetings, and keep up the good work! >> >> Frans >> > > > -- > Krzysztof Janowicz > > Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara > 4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060 > > Email:jano@geog.ucsb.edu <mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu> > Webpage:http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/ > Semantic Web Journal:http://www.semantic-web-journal.net > > -- Andrea Perego, Ph.D. Scientific / Technical Project Officer European Commission DG JRC Institute for Environment & Sustainability Unit H06 - Digital Earth & Reference Data Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262 21027 Ispra VA, Italy https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
Received on Tuesday, 12 January 2016 18:12:06 UTC