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 11:51:43 +0200
To: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
Cc: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <cad58b28-e301-b949-f57f-498533d27867@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
Many thanks, Jeremy. +1 from me.

Just one thing about the following sentence:

[[
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 
thecorresponding real-world phenonema.
]]

In the revised version I proposed, this was followed by

[[
Also, in some domains and/or applications there is no distinction 
between "features" and the corresponding real-world phenonema.
]]

but I see that this was not added.

The full paragraph should then read:

[[
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”.
]]

I thought it would be important to make this point clear somewhere 
(maybe in a more elaborated way), and this can also be linked to what we 
decided about the use of "indirect identifiers". Section 4 seems to me 
the right place, but I wouldn't object a priori to other options.

Cheers,

Andrea


On 29/09/2016 11:26, Jeremy Tandy 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>         <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>
>         <mailto: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.
>

-- 
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 09:52:23 UTC

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