- From: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:26:04 +0000
- 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>
- Message-ID: <CADtUq_31SK+XFdM3DiTQOXsbF0G6HrcasmAvMRkFxFvgwnqj8Q@mail.gmail.com>
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