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

Look fine to me, your point about KML is well made although it tends to get
used to "just do" geometry.

Ed


On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 at 18:51 <andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu> wrote:

> 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 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]
> *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
>
>
>
-- 


*Ed Parsons *FRGS
Geospatial Technologist, Google

+44 7825 382263 @edparsons
www.edparsons.com