- From: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:30:19 +0000
- To: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>, Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, Payam Barnaghi <payam.barnaghi@gmail.com>
- Message-ID: <CADtUq_2A942VQn6UKHX3Gz7=Qn_gqbszzVUnBt+cmBgt8j5MoA@mail.gmail.com>
All - I've now merged in all the changes that I had to make ahead of the WD release. That leaves: @phila: bibliography @bill: glossary @payam: CRS intro material and associated BP We're still on target to "stabilise" the draft for next Wednesday (5-Oct) Thanks all. Jeremy On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 at 10:26 Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 09:31:02 UTC