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 09:26:04 +0000
Message-ID: <CADtUq_31SK+XFdM3DiTQOXsbF0G6HrcasmAvMRkFxFvgwnqj8Q@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>
See PR 387 [1] ... not quite your words but hopefully close enough. Jeremy

[1]: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/387

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 at 10:23 Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 09:26:45 UTC

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