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

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

From: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:46:12 -0500
Message-Id: <D347666B-4C11-488E-8565-25E2D9CD6433@tumblingwalls.com>
Cc: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
To: Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>
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
> 
Received on Monday, 27 February 2017 14:47:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 27 February 2017 14:47:25 UTC