Re: WG discussion: proposal to remove BP2 - Provide context required to interpret data values

This is not necessarily an argument against removal, but we may have missed the spatial boat on the wording of BP2. Context is such a vague term, and units of measure are a very general requirement, but my sense is that BP2 refers specifically to the spatial context of other feature properties or data values. For example, a population value refers to a land area or a unit land area even if the only included geometry is a (centroid) point. A river may have a flow property, but that value is a measurement or calculation for a particular point along the river even if the river is represented as a line or polygon. So the practice would be to provide metadata that clarifies the spatial significance of non-spatial feature properties.

Josh

> On Feb 27, 2017, at 8:06 AM, Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com> wrote:
> 
> +1 to removal
> 
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 at 12:22 Phil Archer <phila@w3.org <mailto:phila@w3.org>> wrote:
> Jeremy,
> 
> Your list of requirements mean that I can't help but support BP 2's
> removal. However, I am sorry to say that this issue was not addressed in
> DWBP. The nearest advice would be DWBP 3, provide structural metadata
> (which refers to CSVW among other things), and BP 13 which is about
> locale neutral data (separate currency and value, rather than give a
> value as "£12.50" or whatever).
> 
> I know that Dave Raggett (in cc) has been looking at the issue of UoM
> for WoT. The QUDT vocab is too heavy weight for his needs. He may have
> something else to add to this.
> 
> That said, it does seem to me that SDW BP2 overlaps somewhat with BP1
> (which talks about CRS ad TRS as well) so I see why BP2 can go without
> too much loss.
> 
> Phil
> 
> On 27/02/2017 12:04, Jeremy Tandy wrote:
> > Hi - in this sprint for the BP document, the editors are proposing to
> > REMOVE BP2 [1].
> >
> > We think that:
> > 1/ this is not a spatial problem (and so is probably covered by DWBP
> > somewhere)
> > 2/ the current BP text is ambiguous and not actionable - what are we
> > telling people to do
> >
> > I recall that we had a _huge_ discussion about how to encode unit of
> > measurement (etc.) back in July 2016 ("Units of Measure (BP, SSN,
> > Coverages,Time?", see my summary post here [2]) but I don't think we drew
> > any actionable conclusions about Spatial Data?
> >
> > So, we will REMOVE BP2 ... unless someone can write content to make this
> > (i) specifically relevant to spatial data, (ii) actionable, and (iii) best
> > practice that is evident in the wild.
> >
> > WG members. What do you think?
> >
> > Jeremy
> >
> >
> > [1]: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#provide-context <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#provide-context>
> > [2]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Jul/0160.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Jul/0160.html>
> >
> 
> --
> 
> 
> Phil Archer
> Data Strategist, W3C
> http://www.w3.org/ <http://www.w3.org/>
> 
> http://philarcher.org <http://philarcher.org/>
> +44 (0)7887 767755 <tel:07887%20767755>
> @philarcher1
> 
> -- 
> Ed Parsons FRGS
> Geospatial Technologist, Google
> 
> Google Voice +44 (0)20 7881 4501 <tel:%2B44%20%280%2920%207881%204501>
> www.edparsons.com <http://www.edparsons.com/> @edparsons
>