W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > February 2017

Metadata: bounding boxes

From: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 02:57:59 +0000
Message-ID: <CACfF9Lxipkxs=6AytSc3kssYmorB6dD3SYXU9Zp+trdASthLZg@mail.gmail.com>
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Hi

trying to deal with an open issue re BP, in an example in QB4ST

https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/132

been reviewing practices, including BP, w.r.t. defining an bounding spatial
envelope

BP points to geoDCAT - which is kind of loose on the subject:
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/node/141755

but the issue does suggest:
*The provisional proposal is to represent the geometry as a GML literal
(gml:Envelope), as specified in [GEOSPARQL
<http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/geosparql>]. However, this is an
issue that requires further investigation, both in the framework of the
INSPIRE MIG and in relevant standardisation activities.*

the only example in the  BP document uses schema.org "box"

for all these microformats, then using rules to entail equivalent
alternative forms from a given choice is going to be ugly...

NB My own preference is for ttl not json-ld in examples - its far easier to
read, and i think JSON-LD is unlikely to be easily readable by either JSON
or RDF communities - maybe a ttl equivalent should be provided for each
example- which would reinforce the message that using RDF data model makes
sense even if you want to pass data around using json serialisation.

Rob A
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2017 02:58:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 21 February 2017 02:58:50 UTC