W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > July 2016

Re: BP narrative comments

From: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2016 22:38:31 +0000
Message-ID: <CACfF9LyjwnNrL-R8=FRwY69ihz7VW-u17YHD+vVyXqdQ65FCrA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Hi Jeremy,

Am around - shall i look for you on skype or do you want to set up a call -
and does anyone else want to join in or do you want to manage the first cut
at disentangling issues ?

re Step1 - i started thinking about the coverage publishing case but then
got thrown by the concluding para "To make the flooding data easier to use
a volunteer developer publishes a Web application that converts the
flooding coverage dataset to discrete Features with vector geometry that
represent the flooded areas.  Each flooding area is linked to the
administrative areas that it touches."  - which made me think the scope had
morphed to the client side of the service (volunteers dont generally get to
play with the data delivery side, it smelt like a client processing a WCS
output and linking to another resource :-)

re Step 2,

whilst I agree that the distinction between the thing and the digital
representation is not worth getting upset about, I think the assumption
that there is a single representation gets you into trouble.  You cant have
content-negotiation and a single representation unless there is something
to enforce the content is isomorphic.  And then we come to best practice in
the wild, and the UK Linked Data example (and my own experiments around
this) confirm that it is feasible and useful to support multiple views of
an object - i.e.

IMHO this is the critical factor - as ilustrated by the coastline example.
Any "premature simplification" around this will simply degenerate into
chaos sooner rather than later.

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 at 01:30 Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Rob. Am now trying to digest you comments ...
>
> Overview:
> ... I agree with your suggestion that we rephrase to concentrate on a
> web-centric activity; I'll try to incorporate this
>
> Step (1):
> ... reading your points, I'm thinking that perhaps my intent differs from
> your expectation? I don't think we're trying to write a "flood prediction &
> monitoring" best practice- only to use the flooding scenario as a basis for
> explaining how various types of spatial data would be published on the web.
> For this element, I simply wanted the "excuse" to work with coverage data.
> I'm sure that all of the points you raise (from triggers through to input
> of local conditions) are valid- but I lack the expertise to provide a
> comprehensive description of these aspect.
>
> Step (2):
> ... "administrative information": yes, too broad. Intended to refine this
> as more detail appeared in the narrative.
> Reading the discussion about URIs and URLs; I think the key point is about
> distinguishing between the *Thing* and the *Representation(s) of the
> thing*. What is the best practice here? I think that this concern is well
> illustrated in the [draft] W3C URLs in Data Primer [1]; it talks about the
> "Landing Page" that "describes" the "Thing". The Primer provides some
> Recommendations. Do these begin to address your concerns? Also, I'm
> reminded of a discussion with TimBL (during TPAC 2015) where he talked
> about his experience with vCard; the distinction became "overly academic"
> (I'm paraphrasing), it was simple for data consumers figure our that the
> vCard represented the _Person_; no-one cared about the electronic
> representation of a business card. That is, most of the time, you tell
> through context whether you're talking about the Thing or the Landing Page.
> You also mention "in-bound links" that enable other related information to
> also be discovered ... from my POV, I don't yet see any best practice here.
> Offline, we've talked around this issue a number of times. Is there any
> concrete practice that is being used "in the wild"?
>
> As ever, Rob, you're right in the thick of the thorny issues (and probably
> seeing things that I don't!).
>
> Are you available for a call so we can talk through these things verbally?
>
> BR, Jeremy
>
> [1]: https://www.w3.org/TR/urls-in-data/
>
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 at 06:14 Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Rob. Thanks for beginning to work on this. I'm still tied up with
>> meetings at WMO today but will take a detailed look on Monday. Hope to
>> catch up soon ... Jeremy
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 at 16:55, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi - I've started reviewing the narrative and have got some substantive
>>> comments to address before going much further.  These may seem scary, but
>>> it illustrates IMHO the value of the narrative in teasing out the role of a
>>> BP here :-)
>>>
>>> [image: pasted1]
>>>
>>

pasted1
(image/png attachment: pasted1)

Received on Monday, 4 July 2016 22:39:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:23 UTC