W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdwig@w3.org > July 2018

Re: W3C SDWIG - Ontology for RDF Data Cube dicing

From: Rob Atkinson <robatkinson101@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 07:47:33 +1000
Message-ID: <CACfF9Lza+sFVz4bpF3bikpQsfXbxEimWShhg3PztOEN3_5yZmw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Little <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
Cc: "Bill Roberts - Swirrl IT Limited (hello@swirrl.com)" <hello@swirrl.com>, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>, "public-sdwig@w3.org" <public-sdwig@w3.org>
Previously i have played with url templates referencing qb components...

This supports arbitrary service interfaces. The 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 vocab. So leveraging that to justify this new
work makes sense.

Qb metadata for subsets once transferred is another concern, but a use case
for the same vocabulary

Available and keen to support any activity in this space.

Rob






On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, 03:41 Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
wrote:

> Dear Rob and Bill,
>
> Do you think  that there is any mileage in defining an ontology, in OWL or
> SKOS I suppose, for 'dicing' a data cube?
>
> My understanding is that the RDF definition supports 'slicing' across one
> dimension  or more, reducing the dimensionality of the data cube.
> Originally when the RDF ontology was proposed, the UN SDMX statisticians
> could not agree on further sub-setting or summarising.
>
> At the OGC Tech Conference in March in Orléans, there was recognition that
> there was a commonality underlying all the 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, WFS3, there seems to be a push to review the entities that appear
> in various web services and generalising 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 honed. E.g. along one dimension, partition according to
> item count (give me the first 10 000 values, then the next 10 000, ...) or
> according to measure along the dimension (give me everything between 0.0 to
> 45.0, then 45.0 to 90.0, ...) or according to 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.
>
> I see this as being complementary and orthogonal to the QB4ST work.
>
> Does all that make sense? Do you think it worthwhile doing?
>
> Chris
>
> Chris Little BA, MSc, FRMetS, MBCS
> Chair, OGC Meteorology & Oceanography Domain Working Group
> Chair, OGC Temporal DWG
> Member, OGC Architecture Board
>
> IT Fellow - Operational Infrastructures
> Met Office  FitzRoy Road  Exeter  Devon  EX1 3PB  United Kingdom
> Tel: +44(0)1392 886278  Fax: +44(0)1392 885681  Mobile: +44(0)7753 880514
> E-mail: chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk  http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2018 21:48:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:17:49 UTC