Re: Wanted: feedback on UCR requirements

Hi Josh

please refer the the UoM discussion, and in particular Jeremy's summary -
for a discussion of the challenges related to default vs label vs URI vs
embedded model - this seems to apply to CRS as well as UoM.  I'm supposing
that the spatial ontology will want represent what we regard as a BP in
this regard (unless we have a million ad-hoc options in play) - so keen to
get your input on what this might look like in practice.

Rob


On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 at 23:51 Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
wrote:

> The sdwgeo ontology includes a crs property for geometries, separately
> from whatever  might be within a serialization, e.g. for WKT. The
> additional question is whether a new crs vocabulary is needed or a URI
> reference to existing crs definitions is sufficient.
>
> Josh
>
> Joshua Lieberman, Ph.D.
> Principal, Tumbling Walls Consultancy
> Tel/Direct: +1 617-431-6431
> jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com
>
> On Jul 19, 2016, at 04:34, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Frans, fellow BP editors,
>
>
>
> Issue-29, about a way to link geometries to CRS, is something I’m getting
> questions about from ‘the wild’; that is: the Dutch Kadaster where they are
> busily publishing spatial linked data). They are looking for a way to link
> geometries to CRS. I have an email from them explaining what they need and
> what their current workaround is, but it’s in Dutch.
>
>
>
> Linda
>
>
>
> *Van:* Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
> <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>]
> *Verzonden:* donderdag 14 juli 2016 15:31
> *Aan:* Jeremy Tandy; Linda van den Brink; Payam Barnaghi; Simon Cox;
> Kerry Taylor; Krzysztof Janowicz; Armin Haller
> *CC:* SDW WG Public List
> *Onderwerp:* Re: Wanted: feedback on UCR requirements
>
>
>
> Dear fellow editors,
>
>
>
> I am happy to report that the current draft of the UC&R is now free of
> those pesky red notifications of unresolved issues. Many thanks for your
> help with that! However, the tracker still lists two things that need to be
> done:
>
>
>
> Issue-29 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/29> is about a
> possible new requirement for the BP deliverable. Could the BP team please
> have a look?
>
>
>
> Action-111 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/111> is about
> possibly adding use cases and requirements that were used for the existing
> SSN vocabulary. Could the SSN team please have a look and make a decision?
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Frans
>
>
>
> On 22 June 2016 at 13:12, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
>
> Dear editors of the BP/Time/SSN/Coverage deliverable,
>
>
>
> In preparation of a next public working draft of the UCR document I would
> like to ask you for feedback on the requirements for your deliverable as
> specified in the UCR document. Section 6
> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#RequirementsByDeliverable>
> list requirements grouped by deliverable. By now you will have stared long
> & hard at those requirements, and perhaps you concluded that some or not
> clear yet, or that something else is wrong. Perhaps requirements or even
> important use cases are missing?
>
>
>
> While we are working on a new batch of publications before TPAC, it would
> be nice if the requirements in the UCR document are (among) the ones you
> are actually working with. I think the public we are writing for deserves
> that coherence. I presume your deliverables will link back to the UCR
> document and explain how requirements are met or why requirements are not
> met. So if you think any changes are required in the UCR document resulting
> from your work on your deliverable, please inform me.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Frans
>
>
>
>