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

Re: DWBP SDWBP alignment notes

From: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 17:01:42 +0200
To: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
Cc: "Little, Chris" <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>, Byron Cochrane <bcochrane@linz.govt.nz>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Message-id: <477c3e19-355d-060d-902c-e06961f8dbcf@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
Hi, Jeremy.

On 19/07/2016 15:59, Jeremy Tandy wrote:
> Andrea. Thanks for the additions. I keep forgetting what DQV can do for
> us! Are you seeing any adoption in the wild yet?

There are some implementations under-way, which are listed here:

https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/List_of_DQV_implementations

But this is all what I know (sorry).

Andrea


> BR, Jeremy
>
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 at 14:51 Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com
> <mailto:jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     I forgot SDWBP 29 and 30 ...
>
>     SDWBP 29. Agreed.
>
>     SDWBP 30. I recall Bill Roberts saying that being able to use the
>     API to search was important. I think that DWBP 23 covers the broad
>     issue of APIs, but we should (at least) use a search API as an example?
>
>     OK, That's me done for now.
>
>     On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 at 14:45 Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com
>     <mailto:jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         Responding now to Byron.
>
>         Thanks for the assessment. Comments below...
>
>         SDWBP 3 is about converting dataset-scoped identifiers to URLs.
>         I don't see how this relates to vocabularies (topic of DWBP 15).
>         Please can you elaborate?
>
>         SDWBP 8 is about when to use a specific CRS rather than rely on
>         the ubiquitous EPSG 3857 / WGS 84; which is a data quality
>         issue. I don't see how this is a locale issue?
>
>         SDWBP 9. Agreed. Are you aware of any 'vocabularies' that can be
>         used to describe relative positions? (other than GML)
>
>         ... same question applies to SDWBP 10; what are the vocabularies
>         for representing positional inaccuracy?
>
>         SDWBP 13 is trying to say "if you know about a [spatial]
>         relationship with another resource (and you care enough to write
>         it down) then write it down; don't rely on spatial correlation"
>         ... which is why I aligned it with SDWBP 23. The discussion on
>         which spatial vocabulary to use to express those relationships
>         was SDWBP 12 'use spatial semantics for spatial things'.
>
>         SDWBP 14-18. Agree; we need to make sure that folks interested
>         in environmental data (observations) are adequately covered. My
>         hope was that the SSN work would provide sufficient examples.
>         Also, it's difficult for us to define "best practice" for these
>         cases that will refer to the _brand new_ SSN redux (!). Our BPs
>         need to be based on evidence of real world application.
>
>         SDWBP 19-22. I like your idea of giving a primacy to "linking
>         data" ... BP: "do linked data" (!)
>
>         SDWBP 24-25 ... I can see your point about overlap with DWBP
>         1-7. When writing SDWBP 24 I was trying to emphasise that the
>         Links (that we'd earlier recommended creating) can be used to
>         find / discover data; so more about maximising value of Linked
>         Data than talking about particular types of metadata. SDWBP 25
>         is about allowing search engines to see inside the dataset. I'd
>         taken DWBP 1-7 as focusing on the dataset-level metadata rather
>         than the individual entities described by the dataset. Looking
>         again at DWBP 1, I see that that is not necessarily the case.
>         Given that, it would make sense to extend DWBP 1; e.g. using
>         schema.org <http://schema.org> and hypercat as examples?
>
>         SDWBP 26; agree that this is coverage in DWBP 2
>
>         SDWBP 27. This is similar to providing subsets; but the emphasis
>         was to get get data owners to publish their data how ever they
>         could. If they could only afford to do bulk publication, then
>         that's good. If they can provide a rich API, even better. Either
>         way, I think we cover the nuances of this elsewhere.
>
>         SDWBP 28. Agree that this isn't spatial specific. I think the
>         DWBP folks did a great job of covering the bases with DWBP 23
>         'make data available through an API' that I thought we might
>         have to. Likewise, SDWBP 29 aligns well with DWBP 25 'Provide
>         complete documentation for your API'.
>
>         On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 at 13:52 Jeremy Tandy
>         <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com <mailto:jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>             Hi Chris.
>
>             Thanks for taking the time to look at this.
>
>             Responding to (some of) your points about
>             "expansion/restriction/explanation/examples/prescription of
>             DWBP best practices probably needed"...
>
>             DWBP 1 and DWBP 2. I think that generally, when we think
>             about dataset metadata (e.g. for discovery) as defined by,
>             say, DCAT or ISO 19115 I think that this fits in DWBP 2
>             "Provide descriptive metadata". Looking at ISO 19115-1, this
>             does include CRS (as 'referenceSystemInfo';  type
>             'MD_ReferenceSystem'). Don't know if this is in GeoDCAT-AP.
>             That said, we also need to cover use of CRS / SRS in the
>             data itself. I think that's covered in DWBP 15 (reuse
>             vocabularies). We might look at including that as part of
>             the 'data quality' information (DWBP 7) which says "Data
>             quality might seriously affect the suitability of data for
>             specific applications" ... which is also applicable to CRS.
>
>             DWBP 4. You make a good point; this practice enables someone
>             to conveniently query or explore the dataset. Is this
>             inherently spatial? As of now, I'm not sure where in our set
>             of examples I could add this. Thoughts appreciated.
>
>             DWBP 11. We talk about "use URIs as identifiers within
>             datasets"; these are for the things described in datasets
>             (e.g. spatial things, geometries etc.) so that they can be
>             referenced from _outside_ the dataset. This should resolve
>             your intra-dataset concern.
>
>             DWBP 14. providing different resolutions / matrix tile sets
>             (etc.) fits better with DWBP 18 'provide subsets of large
>             datasets'. I see a reduced resolution dataset as a "subset".
>
>             DWBP 28. I think this is a different use of the word
>             "coverage". What this is referring to is trying to make sure
>             that the "dataset" includes all the reference material that
>             is required to interpret the data when you take it offline
>             for archive. This isn't a spatial thing.
>
>             Thanks again for the input.
>
>             Jeremy
>
>             On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 at 10:53 Little, Chris
>             <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk
>             <mailto:chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>> wrote:
>
>                 Jeremy, Linda,____
>
>                 __ __
>
>                 To add to Byron’s useful comments here is my take on
>                 what DWBPs can be left untouched/unqualified and which
>                 may need more prescriptive additions. I have left in the
>                 current numbering as these are direct links to the
>                 current Candidate Recommendation document. I have tried
>                 to be strict – we could easily have meaningful comments
>                 on each of the 35 BPs.____
>
>                 __ __
>
>                 I think that there is a significant amount of work to do
>                 this properly.____
>
>                 __ __
>
>                 __A.      __BPs to leave as is, as just point to BP in
>                 DWBP section:____
>
>                 Best Practice 3
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#LocaleParametersMetadata>:
>                 Provide locale parameters metadata ____
>
>                 Best Practice 5
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#DataLicense>:
>                 Provide data license information____
>
>                 Best Practice 6
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#DataProvenance>:
>                 Provide data provenance information____
>
>                 Best Practice 8
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#VersioningInfo>:
>                 Provide a version indicator____
>
>                 Best Practice 9
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#VersionHistory>:
>                 Provide version history____
>
>                 Best Practice 10
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#UniqueIdentifiers>:
>                 Use persistent URIs as identifiers of datasets____
>
>                 Best Practice 12
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#VersionIdentifiers>:
>                 Assign URIs to dataset versions and series____
>
>                 Best Practice 16
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#ChooseRightFormalizationLevel>:
>                 Choose the right [vocabulary/semantic] formalization
>                 level: this already has an example of supplying
>                 coordinates of bus stops as well as times and route
>                 numbers of buses____
>
>                 Best Practice 19
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#Conneg>:
>                 Use content negotiation for serving data available in
>                 multiple formats____
>
>                 Best Practice 20
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#AccessRealTime>:
>                 Provide real-time access ____
>
>                 Best Practice 21
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#AccessUptoDate>:
>                 Provide data up to date ____
>
>                 Best Practice 22
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#DataUnavailabilityReference>:
>                 Provide an explanation for data that is not available____
>
>                 Best Practice 23
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#useanAPI>:
>                 Make data available through an API: Unless there are
>                 some specific ones to recommend____
>
>                 Best Practice 24
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#APIHttpVerbs>:
>                 Use Web Standards as the foundation of APIs____
>
>                 Best Practice 25
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#documentYourAPI>:
>                 Provide complete documentation for your API____
>
>                 Best Practice 26
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#avoidBreakingChangesAPI>:
>                 Avoid Breaking Changes to Your API____
>
>                 Best Practice 27
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#ResourceStatus>:
>                 Preserve identifiers____
>
>                 Best Practice 29
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#GatherFeedback>:
>                 Gather feedback from data consumers ____
>
>                 Best Practice 30
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#FeedbackInformation>:
>                 Make feedback available____
>
>                 Best Practice 31
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#EnrichData>:
>                 Enrich data by generating new data____
>
>                 Best Practice 32
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#ProvideComplementaryPresentations>:
>                 Provide Complementary Presentations____
>
>                 Best Practice 33
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#ProvideFeedbackToPublisher>:
>                 Provide Feedback to the Original Publisher____
>
>                 Best Practice 34
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#FollowLicensingTerms>:
>                 Follow Licensing Terms____
>
>                 Best Practice 35
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#CiteOriginalPublication>:
>                 Cite the Original Publication____
>
>                 __ __
>
>                 __B.      __Additional
>                 expansion/restriction/explanation/examples/prescription
>                 probably needed____
>
>                 Best Practice 1
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#ProvideMetadata>:
>                 Provide metadata: Some preferences like geo extensions
>                 to dcterms, or ISO19115 ____
>
>                 Best Practice 2
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#DescriptiveMetadata>:
>                 Provide descriptive metadata:Does this include CRSs?____
>
>                 Best Practice 4
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#StructuralMetadata>:
>                 Provide structural metadata: Does this include map layer
>                 model? Tiling matrix sets? 3D City geometry?____
>
>                 Best Practice 7
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#DataQuality>:
>                 Provide data quality information:Suggest that this
>                 includes CRSs and expected accuracy and precision?____
>
>                 Best Practice 11
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#identifiersWithinDatasets>:
>                 Use persistent URIs as identifiers within datasets: Not
>                 sure about this – many intra-dataset URIs may involve
>                 coordinates that may need special URI handling?____
>
>                 Best Practice 13
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#MachineReadableStandardizedFormat>:
>                 Use machine-readable standardized data formats: Suggest
>                 some?____
>
>                 Best Practice 14
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#MultipleFormats>:
>                 Provide data in multiple formats: Suggest that this
>                 might cover different resolutions/matrix tile sets?____
>
>                 Best Practice 15
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#ReuseVocabularies>:
>                 Reuse vocabularies, preferably standardized ones:Are
>                 there any to suggest?____
>
>                 Best Practice 17
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#BulkAccess>:
>                 Provide bulk download:Suggest some examples of where
>                 this could be useful, as opposed to incremental updating
>                  ____
>
>                 Best Practice 18
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#ProvideSubsets>:
>                 Provide Subsets for Large Datasets: Suggest tiling, both
>                 of maps and data like 3DCity.____
>
>                 Best Practice 28
>                 <http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/#EvaluateCoverage>:
>                 Assess dataset coverage:Is this just a bounding box?
>                 Completeness of tile sets? Certificate of Quality? OWS
>                 Context?____
>
>                 __ __
>
>                 HTH, Chris____
>
>                 *From:*Byron Cochrane [mailto:bcochrane@linz.govt.nz
>                 <mailto:bcochrane@linz.govt.nz>]
>                 *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2016 11:52 PM
>                 *To:* 'public-sdw-wg@w3.org
>                 <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>'; 'Jeremy Tandy'
>                 *Subject:* DWBP SDWBP allignment notes____
>
>                 __ __
>
>                 Hi Jeremy,____
>
>                 __ __
>
>                 Here are the notes I made reviewing the two BP docs as
>                 promised.  I have not had time time adjust much to the
>                 feedback last night.  My approach was to review your BP
>                 Consolidation Proposal notes and add comments.  Mostly,
>                 I generally agreed with your existing comments so you
>                 can assume general agreement with those BPs not
>                 commented on here.  Notes are still very rough and need
>                 further thought, but provide me a starting point. Not
>                 sure all these notes agree with each other yet!____
>
>                 __ __
>
>                 SDWBP 3 - This would more naturally fit in reuse of
>                 existing vocabularies discussion (DWBP 15?).  Important
>                 point is when to make spatial relationships explicit or
>                 leave implicit____
>
>                 __ __
>
>                 SDWBP 8 - I am inclined to think DWBP 3 is the correct
>                 place to talk about this.  Can recommend WGS 84 as
>                 default, but not convinced that this is just a “data
>                 quality” issue____
>
>                 __ __
>
>                 SDWBP 9 - Same as 3. Belongs in DWBP 15____
>
>                 __ __
>
>                 SDWBP 13 - Seems very similar to 3 and 9 but not sure 23
>                 is the place for this.____
>
>                 __ __
>
>                 SDWBP 14-18 - All of Sensors and Observations section.
>                 Need to think how to handle this.  Do we lose something
>                 valuable that is not covered by SSN if we take this out?____
>
>                 __ __
>
>                 SDWBP 19-22 - Isn’t linked data an implicit goal of this
>                 and a specific need for DWBP? Or if these are needed for
>                 peculiarities of spatial, should these specifically link
>                 to related “BP for Publishing Linked Data” topics? ____
>
>                 __ __
>
>                 SDWBP 24-26 - This section should align with DWBP 1-7 -
>                 the various forms of metadata BC 24 - Do not see how
>                 this differs from 3,9,13,23 BC 25 - Crawability of data
>                 is not a specific concern of spatial. Ideally if needed
>                 it should be in DWBP, but this is not possible.  I have
>                 some strong disagreements with the perceived value of
>                 crawliblity when applied to data, but can leave that
>                 aside for the time being.____
>
>                 __ __
>
>                 SDWBP 26 - already covered in DWBP 2 ”spatial
>                 coverage”.  For API guidance look to alignment with DWBP
>                 25____
>
>                 __ __
>
>                 SDWBP 27 -  Isn’t this the same as providing subsets
>                 DWBP 11? Also, APIs are covered in DWBP 23 -26.  Not
>                 sure what is that geo specific here____
>
>                 __ __
>
>                 SDWBP 28 - Most of this section is not Geo specific.
>                 Some out of date info here.  WFS section needs a serious
>                 update to be with the times.  As of OGC Testbed 11, WFS
>                 has a restful interface and has always been able to
>                 carry payloads other than GML.  APIs are well covered
>                 generally in DWBP 23-26. Should align geo specific
>                 concerns with these____
>
>                 __ __
>
>                 SDWBP 29 - The examples section of “GetCapabilities” is
>                 useful. Topic is otherwise covered in DWBP API section.
>                 There has been much discussion in other venues about the
>                 need for a landing page that contains GetCapabilities
>                 info.____
>
>                 __ __
>
>                 SDWBP 30 - Again little specific to geo.  Should be
>                 covered in DWBP?____
>
>                 __ __
>
>                 As I said these are rough notes.  I hope to work more on
>                 these tomorrow and may begin to experiment with
>                 alignment with DWBP by topic (rather than number as
>                 suggested by Phil).  Already seeing issue there such as
>                 in metadata section where spatial metadata generally
>                 covers many of the first few best practices.  So a one
>                 to one alignment may be difficult without a great deal
>                 of repetition.____
>
>                 __ __
>
>                 Cheers,____
>
>                 __ __
>
>                 *Byron Cochrane
>                 **SDI Technical Leader*____
>
>                 *New Zealand Geospatial Office**____*
>
>                 __ __
>
>                 *E**  bcochrane@linz.govt.nz
>                 <mailto:bcochrane@linz.govt.nz>| **DDI** **04 460
>                 0576| **M** **021 794 501**____*
>
>                 __ __
>
>                 *Wellington Office, Level 7, Radio New Zealand House,
>                 155 The Terrace
>                 PO Box 5501, Wellington 6145, New Zealand | **T**04 460
>                 0110   **
>                 **W  www.linz.govt.nz <http://www.linz.govt.nz/> |
>                 data.linz.govt.nz <http://www.data.linz.govt.nz/>
>                 **http://www.linz.govt.nz/sites/default/files/images/email-signature-v2.png*____
>
>                 __ __
>
>                 __ __
>
>                 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 This message contains information, which may be in
>                 confidence and may be subject to legal privilege. If you
>                 are not the intended recipient, you must not peruse,
>                 use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message. If
>                 you have received this message in error, please notify
>                 us immediately (Phone 0800 665 463 or info@linz.govt.nz
>                 <mailto:info@linz.govt.nz>) and destroy the original
>                 message. LINZ accepts no responsibility for changes to
>                 this email, or for any attachments, after its
>                 transmission from LINZ. Thank You.____
>

-- 
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific / Technical Project Officer
European Commission DG JRC
Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
Unit B6 - Digital Economy
Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
21027 Ispra VA, Italy

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
Received on Tuesday, 19 July 2016 15:02:37 UTC

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