Re: Coverage subgroup update

hm, is this aligned with the OGC coverage model? If not, why do you think that
OGC could support something not compatible?

On 07/19/2016 10:42 PM, Bill Roberts wrote:
> Hi all
> Sorry for being a bit quiet on this over the last month or so - it was as a
> result of a combination of holiday and other commitments.
> However, some work on the topic has been continuing.  Here is an update for
> discussion in the SDW plenary call tomorrow.
> In particular I had a meeting in Reading on 5 July with Jon Blower and
> fellow-editor Maik Riechert.
> During that we came up with a proposed approach that I would like to put to
> the group.  The essence of this is that we take the CoverageJSON specification
> of Maik and Jon and put it forward as a potential W3C/OGC recommendation.  See
> for the current
> status of the CoverageJSON specification.
> That spec is still work in progress and we identified a couple of areas where
> we know we'll want to add to it, notably around a URI convention for
> identifying an extract of a gridded coverage, including the ability to
> identify a single point within a coverage. (Some initial discussion of this
> issue at
> Maik and Jon understandably feel that it is for others to judge whether their
> work is an appropriate solution to the requirements of the SDW group.  My
> opinion from our discussions and initial review of our requirements is that it
> is indeed a good solution and I hope I can be reasonably objective about that.  
> My intention is to work through the requirements from the UCR again and
> systematically test and cross-reference them to parts of the CovJSON spec.
> I've set up a wiki page for that:
>  That should give us a focus for identifying and discussing issues around the
> details of the spec and provide evidence of the suitability of the approach
> (or not, as the case may be). 
> There has also been substantial interest and work within the coverage
> sub-group on how to apply the RDF Data Cube vocabulary to coverage data, and
> some experiments on possible adaptations to it.  The main potential drawback
> of the RDF Data Cube approach in this context is its verbosity for large
> coverages.  My feeling is that the standard RDF Data Cube approach could be a
> good option in the subset of applications where the total data volume is not
> excessive - creating a qb:Observation and associated triples for each data
> point in a coverage.  I'd like to see us prepare a note of some sort to
> explain how that would work.  I also think it would be possible and desirable
> to document a transformation algorithm or process for converting CoverageJSON
> (with its 'abbreviated' approach to defining the domain of a coverage) to an
> RDF Data Cube representation.
> So the proposed outputs of the group would then be:
> 1) the specification of the CoverageJSON format, to become a W3 Recommendation
> (and OGC equivalent)
> 2) a Primer document to help people understand how to get started with it.
>  (Noting that Maik has already prepared some learning material at
> 3) contributions to the SDW BP relating to coverage data, to explain how
> CovJSON would be applied in relevant applications
> 4) a note on how RDF Data Cube can be used for coverages and a process for
> converting CovJSON to RDF Data Cube
> Naturally I expect to discuss this proposal in plenary and coverage sub-group
> calls!
> Best regards
> Bill

Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793), mail:
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)

Received on Tuesday, 19 July 2016 20:52:40 UTC