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

Inclusion of non-geometric ways to describe location (e.g. address and geocode) in BP10?

From: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 09:08:26 +0000
Message-ID: <CADtUq_1nAqzY5D+meZqQLRwYsGM0VxOR-VqW6064OarEwcvv=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>, Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu>, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Hi Bill.


Given that Andrea is talking about _geometries_ in BP8, we seem to have a
gap with regard to _other_ mechanisms to describe location; e.g. addresses
and geocodes (postal codes etc., geohashes [1] and, I think worth
mentioning explicitly, W3W [2]).


In you discussion of “how to encode spatial data” I think it is worth
calling these mechanisms out specifically, and referring to Andrea’s work
on geometries in BP8.


Given Andrea's involvement with the ISA Programme Location Core Vocabulary
[3] (which defines locn:Address), he may have some useful contributions
here too.


Addresses are mentioned in the following use cases:

   - 4.5 Harvesting of Local Search Content
   - 4.9 Enabling publication, discovery and analysis of spatiotemporal
   data in the humanities
   - 4.13 Publication of air quality data aggregations


Strangely, we don’t have any requirements that mention addresses.


I’m also reminded of the Discrete Global Grid System (DGGS) standard being
prepared by OGC [4] which will … For example, HEALPix (“Hierarchical Equal
Area isoLatitude Pixelization”) grids, an indexing system used for DGGS,
are useful for EO data because each cell is uniquely identified and has
equal-area (at that level in the grid) so that you don’t need to re-sample
when comparing cell properties; the value of each cell is directly
comparable. DGGS and HEALPix are (were?) referenced in the EO-QB work of
our group.


That said, I don’t think the DGGS is formally approved as a standard, so it
may only warrant a note - or no mention at all. I doubt it meets our
criteria for “best practice in the wild”. It also looks a little complex
from my quick scan of the OGC doc.


There are also clearly a large number of other coding systems for
geographical and administrative areas & places. I’ll try to cover referring
to these types of things in BP14 concerning linking.


Given the short amount of time available before our intended “freeze” (on
Wed 15-Mar) of the BP doc for next WD release, I’d be content to push these
changes into the work plan for the next sprint.


Jeremy



[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geohash

[2]: http://what3words.com

[3]: https://www.w3.org/ns/locn#

[4]: public draft: OGC #15-104r3
https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/66643
Received on Saturday, 11 March 2017 09:09:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 11 March 2017 09:09:10 UTC