Re: Glossary/Definitions - RE: [Minutes] 2016-02-09 F2F Day 2

2016-02-11 12:59 GMT+01:00 Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>:

>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> Sorry, Phil, I'm just trying to understand the opportunity and the cost.
>>
>
> The cost would be a small bit of work for someone to create a SKOS file
> (probably as turtle, RDF/XML, HTML and perhaps JSON-LD) that we would
> publish on w3.org somewhere (probably w3.org/2016/??/geo-glossary) - so
> not in /TR space. As Simon says, it's really because W3C has the
> infrastructure to do this easily (it's easy for us to do, I think more easy
> for us than OGC even).
>
> @Linda - I don't see us writing new text around this or adapting the
> content at all. Just making it available in a Web-friendly way so that the
> BP doc can link to it where necessary.
>
> Simon might have a student who could do it, I have a work experience lad
> with me in June who could do it etc.
>
> That's all. Actually the bigger issue is making sure that TC211 is happy
> with us doing it - legally and relationship-wise.
>

Should this be seen as a one time process? If changes in the TC211
definitions occur it would be sensible to update our derived product too.
Which means the procedure should be repeatable and that someone or
something should monitor changes. Unless TC211 accepts responsibility for
publishing the definitions in additional formats. anyway, making
arrangements for future changes is probably a bit of extra work.

Regards,
Frans



>
> Phil.
>
>
>
>
> From: Linda van den Brink [mailto:l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl]
>> Sent: Thursday, 11 February 2016 7:21 PM
>> To: Simon.Cox@csiro.au; Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>;
>> phila@w3.org; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: Glossary/Definitions - RE: [Minutes] 2016-02-09 F2F Day 2
>>
>> It would be useful, however, I have concerns (from glancing at it) that
>> the content of this glossary is mostly oriented towards the geospatial
>> community. We might still need to explain some of the terms in this
>> glossary for non-spatial-experts. And a lot of the terms would never come
>> up in our best practice or other deliverables.
>>
>> Van: Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au> [mailto:
>> Simon.Cox@csiro.au]
>> Verzonden: donderdag 11 februari 2016 00:30
>> Aan: kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au<mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>;
>> phila@w3.org<mailto:phila@w3.org>; Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:
>> Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>;
>> Linda van den Brink
>> Onderwerp: RE: Glossary/Definitions - RE: [Minutes] 2016-02-09 F2F Day 2
>>
>> ... because they don't have the skills, or resources. They focus more on
>> the content than delivery. But the content does reflect the outcome of a
>> pretty rigorous process.
>>
>> I have a student looking at it, as of yesterday, but not sure how fast
>> that will move.
>>
>> Simon J D Cox
>>
>> Research Scientist
>>
>> Environmental Information Infrastructures
>>
>> Land and Water
>>
>> CSIRO
>>
>>
>>
>> E simon.cox@csiro.au<mailto:simon.cox@csiro.au> T +61 3 9545 2365 M +61
>> 403 302 672
>>
>>     Physical: Reception Central, Bayview Avenue, Clayton, Vic 3168
>>
>>     Deliveries: Gate 3, Normanby Road, Clayton, Vic 3168
>>
>>     Postal: Private Bag 10, Clayton South, Vic 3169
>>
>> people.csiro.au/Simon-Cox
>>
>> orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420
>>
>> researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Kerry Taylor
>> Sent: Wednesday, 10 February 2016 11:22:01 PM
>> To: Phil Archer; Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton); public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:
>> public-sdw-wg@w3.org>; Linda van den Brink
>> Subject: RE: Glossary/Definitions - RE: [Minutes] 2016-02-09 F2F Day 2
>> Phil,
>> Why would TC211 not do it themselves?  Why us?
>> Although I cannot see it being very difficult.
>>
>> Kerry
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, 11 February 2016 6:51 AM
>> To: Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
>> <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>; Linda van den Brink <
>> l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl<mailto:l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>>
>> Subject: Re: Glossary/Definitions - RE: [Minutes] 2016-02-09 F2F Day 2
>>
>> + Linda
>>
>> Simon,
>>
>> Geonovum's Paul Janssen approached me this evening to talk about this
>> very topic. I ended up saying that *if* this WG so desired, we could go
>> through some cycles of liaison with TC211 to make sure everyone was happy
>> and, if so, publish their glossary as a SKOS concept scheme in w3.org
>> space (full credit, their doc is normative, all mistakes are ours yada
>> yada). (All good concept schemes come with human readable HTML versions of
>> course).
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Phil.
>>
>> On 09/02/2016 23:25, Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:
>>
>>>         [42] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Glossary_of_terms
>>>>
>>>
>>> The ISO/TC 211 Glossary is also publicly available.
>>> http://www.isotc211.org/Terminology.htm
>>> Why not just use that?
>>> It is currently a spreadsheet, but it has been suggested to convert into
>>> linked data resources.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, 10 February 2016 1:57 AM
>>> To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org
>>> >>
>>> Subject: [Minutes] 2016-02-09 F2F Day 2
>>>
>>> Minutes from today's F2F meeting are, of course, at
>>> https://www.w3.org/2016/02/09-sdw-minutes.
>>>
>>> The text version is pasted below.
>>>
>>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Phil Archer
>> W3C Data Activity Lead
>> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>>
>> http://philarcher.org
>> +44 (0)7887 767755
>> @philarcher1
>>
>>
> --
>
>
> Phil Archer
> W3C Data Activity Lead
> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
>
>