Revision to tables in Appendix A (was: RE: Agenda for BP sub-group call (Wednesday 26 April, 15:00utc))

Thanks for the feedback, Clemens.

(I'm opening a new thread on this topic, and linking it to ACTION-126 [1] )

My comments below.

> 1. Usage: KML it is not about "Spatial things and geometries" in my view. Everything is a "Placemark" and the main focus of KML is "geographic visualization, including annotation of maps and images. Geographic visualization includes not only the presentation of graphical data on the globe, but also the control of the user's navigation in the sense of where to go and where to look."  (see http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/kml). So maybe change it to "Geographic visualization of spatial things and geometries"?

I've actually used this field to say whether a format could represent features (more in general, spatial things) and/or geometries  probably forcing the original purpose of it in Ed's table.

The last table row ("remarks") includes a statement on the purpose of KML - taken from your table ;)

[[
Focussed on visualization of and interaction with spatial data, typically in Earth browsers, like Google Earth
]]

Do you think this addresses the issue you point out?

> 2. Axis Order: The statement is incorrect for GML. It should be "Determined by the CRS used". The attribute @axisLabels may be used to state labels for the CRS axis explicitly, but that is probably an unnecessary detail here

Thanks for the correction. Text fixed accordingly:

https://andrea-perego.github.io/sdw/bp/#table-formats-matrix

> 3. Verbosity: I do not understand what the comparative measures for lightweight/medium/verbose are, but from my experience there is not such a clear difference in most cases between the formats we have in the table. There were some comparisons in OGC testbeds for some of them, but I also found this: https://tokumine.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/gis-data-payload-sizes/. If we would have binary formats in the table this row might have value, but for the formats we have I would suggest to delete the row. If we keep it, it should be clear where the cell values come from.

Actually, Ed's original table (from which I took "verbosity") included both binary and text formats. I'm happy with your suggestion to drop the row.

@Ed, WDYT?

Andrea

[1] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/126

----
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.

From: Clemens Portele [mailto:portele@interactive-instruments.de]
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 6:30 PM
To: PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA)
Cc: Jeremy Tandy; SDW WG Public List; Ed Parsons; Bill Roberts; Linda van den Brink
Subject: Re: Agenda for BP sub-group call (Wednesday 26 April, 15:00utc)

Hi Andrea, all,

as discussed in the meeting I had a look at the table. I have only a few comments:

1. Usage: KML it is not about "Spatial things and geometries" in my view. Everything is a "Placemark" and the main focus of KML is "geographic visualization, including annotation of maps and images. Geographic visualization includes not only the presentation of graphical data on the globe, but also the control of the user's navigation in the sense of where to go and where to look."  (see http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/kml). So maybe change it to "Geographic visualization of spatial things and geometries"?

2. Axis Order: The statement is incorrect for GML. It should be "Determined by the CRS used". The attribute @axisLabels may be used to state labels for the CRS axis explicitly, but that is probably an unnecessary detail here.

3. Verbosity: I do not understand what the comparative measures for lightweight/medium/verbose are, but from my experience there is not such a clear difference in most cases between the formats we have in the table. There were some comparisons in OGC testbeds for some of them, but I also found this: https://tokumine.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/gis-data-payload-sizes/. If we would have binary formats in the table this row might have value, but for the formats we have I would suggest to delete the row. If we keep it, it should be clear where the cell values come from.

Thanks,
Clemens

On 26. Apr 2017, at 16:53, andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu<mailto:andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu> wrote:

Dear all,

About the agenda item concerning the format tables in appendix, I posted a possible revision in my sdw fork. Basically, I created two tables:

The first is about formats:

https://andrea-perego.github.io/sdw/bp/#table-formats-matrix

The second is a new one, about the vocabularies listed in the relevant section:

https://andrea-perego.github.io/sdw/bp/#table-vocabs-matrix

The first one (formats) is based on and extends Ed's one, including some information from the detailed format table prepared by Clemens.
The not included "rows" from Clemens's table are the following ones:
- Requires authoring of a vocabulary/schema for my data (or use of existing ones)
- Supports reuse of third party vocabularies for features and properties
- Supports extensions (geometry types, metadata, etc.)
- Supports non-simple property values
- Supports multiple values per property
- Supports multiple geometries per feature
- Support for non-linear interpolations in curves
- Support for non-planar interpolations in surfaces
I'll provide more details during the call.

Thanks

Andrea
----
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.

________________________________
From: Jeremy Tandy [jeremy.tandy@gmail.com<mailto:jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>]
Sent: 25 April 2017 17:00
To: SDW WG Public List
Subject: Agenda for BP sub-group call (Wednesday 26 April, 15:00utc)
Hi all.

Agenda for tomorrow's BP sub-group call is now available here [1].

Key points are:
* [Jeremy] Agree updated release schedule (see WG email [2])
* [Linda] Review (& hopefully resolve) open BP issues in GitHub [3] - (see prioritised list [4] so we deal with the big/important concerns first)
* [Ed] Review open public comments [5]
* [Jeremy] Sprint status review (check progress on actions listed at BP Detailed Plan [6]); particularly...
** [https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#File_formats_and_vocabularies File formats and vocabularies Appendix] - noting the material added by '''Andrea Perego''' to the section 12.2.1 [7] introduction
** Glossary [8] - noting that '''Peter Parslow''' is unable to complete this work before end-May
* AOB

Hope to 'see' you all tomorrow.

Jeremy

[1]: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:BP-Telecon20170426
[2]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Apr/0300.html
[3]: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue%20is%3Aopen%20label%3Abp
[4]: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_sorted_issue_list
[5]: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#Outstanding_public_comments
[6]: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#Mid_March_-_end_of_April_2017:
[7]: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-expressing-spatial
[8]: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Detailed_planning_BP_document#Glossary

Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2017 17:52:10 UTC