W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdwig@w3.org > May 2019

Re: [sdw] Alignment of QB4ST with DCAT-2 (#1123)

From: Chris Little via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 01 May 2019 14:38:09 +0000
To: public-sdwig@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-488300091-1556721488-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
This seems sensible. Originally I was disconcerted by 'dataset_spatialresolution' being in metres. The two 'edgy' cases from earth system modelling are:
1. Lat Long grid, specified in term of N-S, pole to equator, resolution or number of grid lengths, and the corresponding E-W resolution actually varying from a decimal value to zero at the poles.
2. (Polar) Sterographic grid, where the resolution varies from a decimal value to infinity at the other pole or equator.
In practice, we can pick locations, such as latitude 60N, where the decimal value is accurate, and hopefully the varying detail can be represented in the Data Quality Vocabulary [VOCAB-DQV]. 

However, even though I am happy that 'dataset_temporal' is a named timespan or an interval specified by two instants (which makes it 'calendar orthogonal'), it does not seem to fit with 'dataset_temporalresolution' which is a duration, the result of differencing two instants, which is fine with a single UoM CRS but not necessarily simple arithmetic within a calendar system. 

In very simple terms, a time interval specified by two end-points, and a time interval specified by an end point and a duration, are not always equivalent.

I am not sure whether this matters or is just me splitting theological temporal hairs. What does the DCAT community think?

GitHub Notification of comment by chris-little
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1123#issuecomment-488300091 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2019 14:38:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:01 UTC