W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdwig@w3.org > January 2021

RE: Agenda items for SDWIG this Thursday 7th of January 2021

From: Peter Parslow <Peter.Parslow@os.uk>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 10:01:23 +0000
To: "Rushforth, Peter (NRCan/RNCan)" <peter.rushforth@canada.ca>, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, "jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk" <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>, "ted@w3.org" <ted@w3.org>, Clara Boyd <clara.boyd@os.uk>
CC: public-sdwig <public-sdwig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <LOYP123MB3117BF7EDCBAE68B680620B3EAD10@LOYP123MB3117.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Peter,
CRS is only one part of what makes a given tile / map / dataset useful at only certain scales (zoom levels); it's also a matter of how accurately the data was collected in the purpose, how much the data has been generalised, and to some extent, what it was collected for.

So for example, we (OS) have data in our own "British National Grid" (a projected grid reference system) and ETRS-89 (an earth-fixed Cartesian system) at various scales / zoom levels. Same CRS, different amounts of detail.

I suspect that the convenience APIs need to have separate parameters for CRS and 'scale', and this is the approach taken by those APIs that I know. So a 'data set' should be documented with both CRS and 'acceptable zoom level' in some way, so that a request to zoom in further than the publisher considers reasonable can be refused.

I do know that the DGGS (Distributed Global Grid System) people are looking at the relationship between 'cell size' and underlying CRS - in the sense that some CRSs are in their nature not too good for "zooming in" too close (in their world, having a smaller cell size).

Peter Parslow
OS Open Standards Lead
Adanac Drive, Southampton, United Kingdom, SO16 0AS
T: +44 (0)2380 055341 | M: +44 (0)7796 610020
www.os.uk<http://os.uk/> | peter.parslow@os.uk<mailto:peter.parslow@os.uk>

From: Rushforth, Peter (NRCan/RNCan) <peter.rushforth@canada.ca>
Sent: 04 January 2021 21:24
To: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>; jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk; ted@w3.org; Clara Boyd <clara.boyd@os.uk>
Cc: public-sdwig <public-sdwig@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Agenda items for SDWIG this Thursday 7th of January 2021

External Email: Take care with attachments & links.

Hi Linda, all,

Best wishes for 2021!

I was wondering if we might have a conversation about Best practice 12 - convenience APIs.  I was going to raise an issue, but it might be better to explain what my idea is before doing that, so as to get person to person feedback.

Basically it's this: maps on the Web are a new thing, compared with some of the standards for spatial information, such as CRS definitions, feature services and others.

When I look at CRS definitions, they don't have any definition of scale, or resolution.  I think this may be a hold-over from the GIS era, where metadata and data were simultaneously available on the client, so that data could be rendered at any scale, transparently.  In any case, I think it might be convenient to define a set of known or recommended scale sets to be associated to a CRS, in a similar way that WMTS does.  This way, services such as feature services and so on, would be able to rely on known scale sets from the CRS definition.  Further, having a scale set built into a CRS definition would push service standards to consider how to best transmit the required scale / resolution over the Web in their definition.

My question is: is this possible? Reasonable?  What are the constraints on such a proposal?  Could this be requested of the OGC community if the SDW thinks it worthy of consideration?


Thank you,

Peter

Peter Rushforth
Technology Advisor
Canada Centre for Mapping and Earth Observation



From: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl<mailto:l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>>
Sent: January 4, 2021 05:20
To: Clara Boyd <clara.boyd@os.uk<mailto:clara.boyd@os.uk>>; jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>; ted@w3.org<mailto:ted@w3.org>; eparsons@google.com<mailto:eparsons@google.com>; Joseph Abhayaratna <joseph.abhayaratna@geoscape.com.au<mailto:joseph.abhayaratna@geoscape.com.au>>
Cc: public-sdwig <public-sdwig@w3.org<mailto:public-sdwig@w3.org>>
Subject: Agenda items for SDWIG this Thursday 7th of January 2021

Hi all,

First of all the best wishes for 2021!

I'm sure most of you are just getting started again and have a pile of email to get through! I just wanted to ask of you have any agenda items for the SDWIG this Thursday.

In a separate email, I already asked Ed/Jo for an update on the responsible use of spatial data Note, of which they want to publish the first draft very soon. Ed or Jo can you confirm?

Clara can you give an update on SDWBP work?

Suggestions from other group members for the agenda are also welcome.

Last month we had a joint call with the Web of Things group, this will be followed up in a separate meeting I expect. I could give a short recap if people want.

Linda




This email and any attachments are intended only for the intended recipient and may contain sensitive information. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately delete this email and inform the sender.

OS email communications may be monitored to ensure the secure and effective operation of our systems and for other lawful purposes. Subject to contract: No rights are to be derived from any proposal contained in this email until a written agreement containing all necessary terms is executed between the relevant parties.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Ordnance Survey Limited (Company Registration number 09121572)
Registered Office: Explorer House
Adanac Drive
Southampton SO16 0AS
Tel: 03456 050505
http://www.os.uk
Received on Tuesday, 5 January 2021 10:01:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 January 2021 10:01:43 UTC