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

Re: UCR ISSUE-31: is the validation requirement in scope?

From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 13:16:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFVDz43q-shiErvBE5AKsEo3+XHss4BhFxc13nGAjUq45YdCYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Hi all,

I have just added the proposed note to the Validation requirement
<http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#Validation>,
and I have closed ISSUE-31.

Have a good day,
Frans

On 2 September 2016 at 17:58, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> So far Chris's response has been the only one. If I may paraphrase, he
> says that validation of spatial data is not a general data validation
> issue, but requires specialist (spatial) knowledge. That could be viewed as
> the justification of the validation requirement
> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#Validation>
> .
>
> So if we leave the requirement as it is ("It should be possible to
> validate spatial data on the Web; to automatically detect conflicts with
> standards or definitions.") and add a NOTE to justify its inclusion, would
> that be acceptable and a good resolution of ISSUE-31
> <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/31>?
>
> The NOTE could say "Although data validation is a general topic, this
> requirement is included because validation of spatial data requires
> specialist spatial techniques."
>
> Regards,
> Frans
>
>
>
>
>
> On 23 August 2016 at 20:13, Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Frans,
>>
>>
>>
>> I think spatial data is a slightly special case – but so are other data
>> domains being used by ‘naïve’ users.
>>
>>
>>
>> If the data points to a location that appears precise (and therefore
>> potentially accurate) but is not because of an inappropriate datum or CRS,
>> the consumer may want to check that the location is accurate enough, but
>> not have enough knowledge to do it themselves.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is quite ubiquitous.
>>
>>
>>
>> I suppose examples from other domains could be:
>>
>> 1.       Requesting a music track of ‘Sway’ and expecting Dean Martin,
>> but actually getting the Mucho Mambo version – technically ‘Sway’ but not
>> what is expected – but rather obvious to many consumers, though perhaps not
>> to someone from the far East. Easily fixed with a bit of metadata
>> (“original recording”).
>>
>> 2.       Searching for medical information. This may be akin to spatial
>> – difficult, complex and a second opinion may be required.
>>
>>
>>
>> Fixing/validating locations can be highly technical, specialized and
>> perhaps difficult. Is this enough to justify inclusion?
>>
>>
>>
>> HTH, Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2016 4:03 PM
>> *To:* SDW WG Public List
>> *Subject:* UCR ISSUE-31: is the validation requirment in scope?
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, it's the official issue-31
>> <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/31> thread!
>>
>> I am sorry it took a while, but it is here now, and with this thread we
>> should be able to quickly resolve the issue.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is about the existing Validation requirement
>> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#Validation>
>> (if the link drops you in the wrong place, you can use the table of
>> contents). The BP team fairly wondered if this requirement is in scope.
>> After all, the need to validate data on the web could well exist for
>> non-spatial data.
>>
>>
>>
>> Would it be possible to give an example of why validating spatial data
>> could be a special case, thereby justifying the inclusion of this
>> requirement?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Frans
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Friday, 9 September 2016 11:17:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:26 UTC