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: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:23:27 +0000
Message-ID: <CADtUq_2OrPHRuWoMLdXyuVe=L9euMZ2TVD3ar0Vy8HauDsTeBA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Hi- I've just applied the proposed change ... and am merging a PR now.
Thanks for trying to clarify the text ... this particular discussion on
terminology seems like an endless loop and I'm very happy if your proposal
helps us put that to bed!

Jeremy

BTW: INSPIRE Spatial Object is _definitely_ an information resource :-)

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 at 10:21 Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
wrote:

> Hi Andrea,
>
> Thank you for following up on this! Your rephrasing sounds good to me. Do
> you want to include the change yourself and do a pull request? Or do you
> want me to do it?
>
> Linda
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Andrea Perego [mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu]
> Verzonden: donderdag 29 september 2016 09:49
> Aan: Jeremy Tandy; Linda van den Brink
> CC: SDW WG Public List
> Onderwerp: Re: no BP sub-group call this week - busy prepping WD release
>
> 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 09:24:07 UTC

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