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

Thanks Bill.

On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 at 09:18 Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com> wrote:

> Hi Jeremy
>
> Good idea - I think it would be good to include something about addresses
> and geocodes as a way of encoding location.  I'll try to incorporate
> something on that.
>
>
>
> On 11 March 2017 at 09:08, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>