[sdw] New Project proposal: Dicing or partitioning Ontology for RDF Data Cubes

6a6d74 has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/sdw:

== New Project proposal: Dicing or partitioning Ontology for RDF Data Cubes ==
The [RDF Data Cube](https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/) specification supports 'slicing' across one dimension or more, thereby reducing the dimensionality of the data cube. Originally when the RDF ontology was proposed, the UN SDMX statisticians could not agree on a vocabulary for further sub-setting or summarizing.

At the OGC TC in March 2018, there was recognition that there was a commonality underlying many proposed big data cubes, geospatial data cubes, map tiles, vector tile sets, data partitions, result paging, etc. 

With the OGC enthusiasm for the newer, more flexible, less schematic, more RESTful, [Web Feature Service V3.0](https://github.com/opengeospatial/WFS_FES/blob/master/README.md), there seems to be a push to review the entities that appear in various web services and generalizing them to use across a variety of services and APIs.

It appears to me that there are some very common patterns in data partitioning that could be re-used, especially if the concepts and terminology were refined; e.g. along one dimension, partition according to: 

* item count (give me the first 10 000 values, then the next 10 000, ...) or
* measure along the dimension (give me everything between 0.0 to 45.0, then 45.0 to 90.0, ...) or 
* data volume (give me the first 10MB of data values, then the next 10MB, ... and by the way, tell me the index value of the dimension boundaries)

These patterns could be applied in 1D (timeseries), 2D (map tiles), 3D (Cesium), or more.

Chris Little sees this as being complementary and orthogonal to the QB4ST work.

Rob Atkinson said he previously had played with URL templates referencing QB components... 
This proposal would support arbitrary service interfaces. The [W3C DXWG](https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/) work on profile descriptions might be a pathway to classifying such services.  Documenting such services, and various subset relationships is important and not well supported, but possibly some of the DCAT work will help, but probably just recommend using an external vocabulary. So leveraging that to justify this new work makes sense.
QB metadata for subsets once transferred is another concern, but would be a use case for the same vocabulary.

Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1068 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2018 13:30:55 UTC