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

Re: Joint SDW paper

From: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 21:00:47 +0000
Message-ID: <CACfF9LzKcDACfaH35PUxMNAxKwcjQJ1W2Jxf_kqp2sQxFzdfHw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, "SDW WG (public-sdw-wg@w3.org)" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Here's a first volley

was looking at the abstract which starts
" In the past, in the Geospatial sector we used to refer to specialised
sources, services and datasets to access spatial data. However, nowadays
spatial data has become so ubiquitous that we no longer think about it as
anything special. Online maps, location-based services, and cyber-physical
services are now common systems and solutions using and/or providing
spatial data on the Web."

and i felt it was putting the audience message fairly firmly into the
traditional geospatial sector, whereas i think its two purposes - 1) to
advise the geospatial sector about web BP, but equally to advise the
broader Web audience about geospatial (and temporal!) matters, and why some
consistency of practice is required.

A second take at this opening (which may require throwing away in turn but
tries to get that balance in scope ):
"The world is creating an ever richer set of information resources online,
and using these for more and more applications. This trend means denser and
finer-grained spatial and temporal characterisations of data, and many of
the simple approaches for "loose" location in space and time will need to
be updated to support domains such as the "Internet of Things". Guiding an
autonomous vehicle to a precise parking spot near a facility that has a
time-bounded service - for example booking a charging spot, needs more than
a GPS coordinate (whose accuracy may be only 100m or so), and a time
without a specified timezone for example. The geospatial community concerns
itself with such matters, an in turn needs guidance for how best to express
these details in the Web. "





On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 at 00:00 Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
wrote:

> Hi Armin,
>
>
>
> Well, I don’t want to be too restrictive, in my book anyone who is active
> in the SDW group and wants to contribute something to the paper is welcome!
> We’ll see how it goes with 16 or 17 authors (so far, with you included).
>
>
>
> Linda
>
>
>
> *Van:* Armin Haller [mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au]
> *Verzonden:* maandag 21 november 2016 06:05
> *Aan:* Linda van den Brink; SDW WG (public-sdw-wg@w3.org)
>
>
> *Onderwerp:* Re: Joint SDW paper
>
>
>
> Hi Linda,
>
>
>
> I’m not active in the BP group either, but, I would be happy to
> contribute. However, seeing from the vast response, there may already be
> too many cooks in the kitchen. Maybe you want to restrict the author list
> to the people who made commits to the BP document (which would exclude me).
> That could potentially be a best practice for future articles based on
> other deliverables of the working group, although not a perfect measure, of
> course.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Armin
>
>
>
> *From: *Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
> *Date: *Thursday 17 November 2016 at 09:08
> *To: *"SDW WG (public-sdw-wg@w3.org)" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> *Cc: *Payam Barnaghi <payam.barnaghi@gmail.com>, "Jeremy Tandy (
> jeremy.tandy@gmail.com)" <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
> *Subject: *Joint SDW paper
> *Resent-From: *<public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Thursday 17 November 2016 at 09:08
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> As I announced at the very end of the telecon yesterday, I’m preparing a
> paper about the SDW BP. Payam and I prepared an abstract and TOC, and want
> to try getting it published in Semantic Web Journal. Of course the work
> we’ll be writing about is done by all of you, so I want to list as many of
> you as possible as co-authors. I even started adding everyone on
> https://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=75471&public=1 but there’s
> about fifty names there…
>
>
>
> So what I want to do is at least list the BP editors; followed by any
> participant in this group who tells me they want to be listed as author and
> contribute something. A contribution could be actually writing a bit of
> text for the paper, or reviewing (a section of) the paper, participate in
> discussions on the paper, give some input for the paper, or just having
> been active on the BP work in this group.
>
>
>
> In addition we’ll put an acknowledgement in the paper (a first draft of
> that is already in the abstract). But I really don’t want anyone to feel
> left out so _*please*_ don’t hesitate to let me know if you want to be
> listed as an author! Just a reply with a simple ‘yes’ is enough.
>
>
>
> The abstract of the paper is here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CAtrBt1P8TMtZDrZYU2Q9-RmtzeWxwl-iEMFfLn2uqg/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
>
> Linda and Payam
>
Received on Monday, 21 November 2016 21:01:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:27 UTC