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

Re: BP8 (web friendly geometries) - compactness, compression, simplification

From: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 18:07:59 +0000
Message-ID: <CADtUq_3D_SNr5Kx2Axxn-krEBJzXpPmam7DhKdHewVPCoF5q9w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Clemens Portele <portele@interactive-instruments.de>
Cc: "andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu" <andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu>, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Thanks Clemens!

Andrea - I suspect you're already pressed to get the existing edits for BP8
done in time for Delft. So long as we know _what_ we need to add, the edits
that Clemens & I suggest could be pushed to the March-April sprint.

Jeremy
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 at 18:01, Clemens Portele <
portele@interactive-instruments.de> wrote:

> I agree, Jeremy.
>
> Related to generalising geometries with Douglas-Peucker or similar, this
> is also something that can be easily supported via a data acess API by
> specifying a parameter that expresses the resolution of the map used to
> display the data in the client. The next version of WFS will support it
> ([1] is the public change request) and ArcGIS supports it for some time
> [2], too. In my view, this capability can be considered a best practice. If
> we have text about this in BP8, maybe we could add a reference to it in
> BP11.
>
> The WFS implementation of my company also supports such a capability, but
> currently we use a custom HTTP header as a work-around as the WFS query
> schema does not support this yet.
>
> Vector tiling is another possible approach to packaging a spatial dataset
> more "Web-friendly", if map display of the dataset is the main focus. The
> de-facto standard is [3].
>
> Clemens
>
> [1] https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=43079
> [2]
> https://blogs.esri.com/esri/arcgis/2011/06/13/feature-layers-can-generalize-geometries-on-the-fly/
> [3] https://github.com/mapbox/vector-tile-spec
>
> On 9 Mar 2017, at 17:38, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrea - it just occurred to me that we're missing a topic in BP8
> concerning making geometries "friendly" for the Web.
>
> It's not just about the format(s) we use, it's also about providing
> geometry objects that are of a size that user agents can handle. (this [1]
> example provides a nice illustration)
>
> I recall that the Geonovum testbed topic 3 covered this issue; see here [2]
>
> What do you (& others) think?
>
> Jeremy
>
> [1]: https://bost.ocks.org/mike/simplify/
> [2]:
> https://github.com/geo4web-testbed/topic3/wiki/Performance-%26-data-compactness
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 9 March 2017 18:08:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 9 March 2017 18:08:43 UTC