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

Re: Geo-DCAT application profile

From: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 11:10:58 +0200
To: Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>
Cc: "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <5693890d-827f-ba0f-55c9-cb59929a685f@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
Hi, Bill.

I've actually chaired the GeoDCAT-AP WG, who released the final version 
of the specification (1.0) last December:


Its XSLT implementation, the related API and additional documentation 
are available from:


GeoDCAT-AP is already included in the SDW UCR document (Section 4.42), 
and there's also a placeholder in the BP.

In July 2015, I've shared an outline of the work done possibly relevant 
to the SDW WG:


I take this opportunity to summarise below what has happened afterwards:


No news. The approach is still the one reported in the following mail:


As said there, the adopted solution highlighted the lack of an agreed 
way in RDF of specifying that a geometry is a bounding box (or a 
centroid, etc.).


The modelling of reference systems in GeoDCAT-AP reflects how this 
information is specified in ISO 19115, as I mentioned here:


Basically, a reference system is denoted both as a dct:Standard and as a 
skos:Concept, linked to the reference register by using skos:inScheme. 
Moreover, dct:type is used to specify whether it is a spatial or 
temporal reference system, by using the relevant terms (skos:Concept's) 
from the glossary of the INSPIRE Registry.

For instance, this could be a description of EPSG:32630:

     a dct:Standard, skos:Concept ;
<http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/glossary/SpatialReferenceSystem> .
"http://www.opengis.net/def/crs/EPSG/0/32630"^^xsd:anyURI ;
     skos:prefLabel "WGS 84 / UTM zone 30N"@en ;
     skos:inScheme <http://www.opengis.net/def/crs/EPSG> .

     a skos:ConceptScheme ;
     dct:title "EPSG coordinate reference systems"@en .

dct:conformsTo is used to specify the reference system(s) used in a 
given dataset.

The description above is not addressing some of issues discussed by the 
WG back in May 2015 - e.g., how to specify the axis order [1] - but it 
could be a starting point. E.g., for temporal reference systems, it can 
be complemented with the relevant terms in the recent version of the 
Time Ontology prepared by Simon - I'm thinking, in particular, to 
time:TRS and time:hasTRS.


Recent discussion with the DWBP WG led to a possible solution, based on 
the Data Quality Vocabulary. The thread starts at:


The relevant section of the DQV specification is 5.13 (ED on GH):



This is just indirectly related to SDW. However, there was some 
discussion with the DWBP WG on how to express conformance test results 
and conformance levels in DQV. This was a long thread, started in August 
2015 [2]. The current situation is described in the following message 
from Antoine Isaac:





On 14/05/2016 19:09, Bill Roberts wrote:
> Hi all
> An EU group is working on 'Geo DCAT' - an extension/profile of DCAT for
> describing geographical datasets - and related to EU INSPIRE standards.
> https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/node/139283/
> Anyone in the SDW group closely involved in this?  Obviously there is
> some overlap with some of our metadata related best practices.
> Latest working draft downloadable here:
> http://joinup.ec.europa.eu/site/dcat_application_profile/GeoDCAT-AP/GeoDCAT-AP_2015-10-12_7th_WG_Draft/
> Should we be engaging with this group?  Do we want to take account of
> their (draft) recommendations?
> Cheers
> Bill

Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific / Technical Project Officer
European Commission DG JRC
Institute for Environment & Sustainability
Unit H06 - Digital Earth & Reference Data
Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
21027 Ispra VA, Italy

Received on Tuesday, 17 May 2016 09:11:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:21 UTC