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

Re: no BP sub-group call this week - busy prepping WD release

From: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:48:36 +0200
To: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <8aeb3459-6260-8f30-cd92-782d1a8149e6@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
Jeremy, Linda,

About the "terminology" issue, I checked mainly the notions of "spatial 
thing" / "feature" in Section 4:

http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/index.html#spatial-things-features-and-geometry

That section says we are using "spatial thing" as equivalent to 
"feature". However, this statement seems to me in conflict with the 
definitions we use in the same section. I'm quoting below the relevant 
passages:

[[
In spatial data standards from the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) and 
the the 19100 series of ISO geographic information standards from ISO/TC 
211 the primary entity is the feature. [ISO-19101] defines a feature as 
an: “abstraction of real world phenomena”.

[...]

However, the term “feature” is also commonly used to mean a capability 
of a system, application or component. To avoid confusion, we adopt the 
term “spatial thing” throughout the remainder of this best practice 
document. “Spatial thing” is defined in [W3C-BASIC-GEO] as “Anything 
with spatial extent, i.e. size, shape, or position. e.g. people, places, 
bowling balls, as well as abstract areas like cubes”.

The term “spatial thing” is considered equivalent to “feature” in the 
first sense discussed above. Furthermore, we treat it as equivalent to 
other commonly used definitions; e.g. Feature from [NeoGeo], described 
as “A geographical feature, capable of holding spatial relations”.
]]

As far as I can see, the definition of "spatial thing" from Basic Geo is 
so general to include any "spatial resource" - i.e., both real-world 
things / phaenomena and information resources. On the other hand, the 
ISO definition of "feature" seems to denote an information resource 
(abstracting a real-world thing / phaenomenon).

I don't know if I got it right, but if this is the case, I include below 
a possible re-phrasing of the last two paragraphs above:

[[
However, the term “feature” is also commonly used to mean a capability 
of a system, application or component. Also, in some domains and/or 
applications there is no distinction between "features" and the 
corresponding real-world phenonema.

To avoid confusion, we adopt the term “spatial thing” throughout the 
remainder of this best practice document. “Spatial thing” is defined in 
[W3C-BASIC-GEO] as “Anything with spatial extent, i.e. size, shape, or 
position. e.g. people, places, bowling balls, as well as abstract areas 
like cubes”.

As such, the term “spatial thing” includes, semantically, the notion of 
“feature” in the first sense discussed above, as well as "real-world 
phenomena". Furthermore, we treat it as inclusive of other commonly used 
definitions; e.g. Feature from [NeoGeo], described as “A geographical 
feature, capable of holding spatial relations”.
]]


Cheers,

Andrea


On 27/09/2016 17:11, Jeremy Tandy wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 at 16:10 Andrea Perego
> <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu <mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>>
> wrote:
>
>     Hi, Jeremy.
>
>     I'll do my best to carry out the review within tomorrow.
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     Andrea
>
>
>     On 27/09/2016 11:57, Jeremy Tandy wrote:
>     > Hi- at the f2f meeting at TPAC last week, we made loads of
>     progress ...
>     > not least was agreeing that the BP doc has changed so much that we
>     > should release it _now_ (more or less) even though we know there's
>     still
>     > so much to do to get it _finished_.
>     >
>     > Here are my notes from the discussion about WD release:
>     >
>     > ```
>     >
>     > /@phila: urges publication with only minimal change … there’s been a
>     > huge amount of work done and we should share this for wider review/
>     >
>     > /What to do:/
>     >
>     >   * /terminology … making sure that we use spatial thing
>     consistently …
>     >     [LvdB … fixed already][Andrea to check again?]/
>     >
>     >   * /glossary … make sure we have glossary terms for everything that
>     >     experts might say - and make sure that the glossary
>     definitions are
>     >     appropriate [@bill]/
>     >
>     >   * /bibliography [@phila] … and figure out if we should use a simple
>     >     hyperlink in place of a bib-ref/
>     >
>     >   * /close issues that we have actually resolved [lvdb]/
>     >
>     >   * /remove the yellow highlight [@jtandy]/
>     >
>     >   * /status of this document [@jtandy]/
>     >
>     >   * /change since last release (“substantial re-write”) … therefore
>     >     don’t need a Diff [@jtandy]/
>     >
>     >   * /update to REQ vs BP … could be automated [@newton (from DWBP
>     WG)]/
>     >
>     > /…/
>     >
>     > /stable version on 5-Oct (wed call)/
>     >
>     > /vote to release 12-Oct /
>     >
>     > ```
>     >
>     > So we have a bunch of editorial actions to do to make a stable release
>     > for 5-Oct (next week) and then (hopefully) a vote to release the
>     week after.
>     >
>     >
>     > If you've got actions (me, linda, bill, phila, andrea) then please
>     crack
>     > on with them. Please ask if you have questions ...
>     >
>     >
>     > We're also expecting some additional content from Payam regarding CRS.
>     >
>     > Best Regards, Jeremy
>     >
>     >
>     > (from Devon, UK - where the weather isn't nearly so nice as in
>     Lisbon!)
>     >
>
>     --
>     Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
>     Scientific / Technical Project Officer
>     European Commission DG JRC
>     Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
>     Unit B6 - Digital Economy
>     Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
>     21027 Ispra VA, Italy
>
>     https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
>
>     ----
>     The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
>     not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
>     position of the European Commission.
>

-- 
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific / Technical Project Officer
European Commission DG JRC
Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
Unit B6 - Digital Economy
Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
21027 Ispra VA, Italy

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

----
The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
position of the European Commission.
Received on Thursday, 29 September 2016 07:49:21 UTC

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