- From: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 10:00:20 +0000
- To: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
- Cc: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CADtUq_1n7TV-tBg5PDPvo-7_mY-LCF_k2gtWnu8rfVjetgOPUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Sorry- didn't see that change :-( ... now included via PR 388 [1] Jeremy [1]: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/388 On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 at 10:51 Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu> wrote: > 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 10:01:06 UTC