Re: More UCR comments

Frans,

"data" would be ok for me, too.

Regarding your second aspect, I would agree, if it is the real-world phenomenon itself, but the feature is an abstraction of it. In my view, features are information resources. I guess this is a discussion item for the best practice work, so another reason for using "data" instead of "feature" for now.

Best regards,
Clemens

> On 10 Jun 2015, at 10:36, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 2015-06-09 12:06 GMT+02:00 Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es <mailto:allaves@fi.upm.es>>:
> Thanks for your comments, Clemens! Find my answers inline.
> 
> On 2 June 2015 at 22:54, Clemens Portele <portele@interactive-instruments.de <mailto:portele@interactive-instruments.de>> wrote:
> Dear Frans, Alejandro, all,
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Requirement 5.20 (linkability) states: "Spatial data on the Web should be linkable (by explicit relationships between different facts in different data sets), to other spatial data and to or from other types of data."
> 
> I did not find "fact" in the glossary. On the other hand it has "feature" and that is used in other requirements, too. I would therefore propose to change "facts" to "features".
> 
> Makes sense to me. Changed.
> 
>  I see two risks with changing 'fact' to 'feature':
> 
> It is my understanding that in the OGC /ISO19101 world a feature is a rather high level concept: a feature has attributes or properties that themselves are not features. For instance, a city can be regarded as a feature while its name, start date or geometry are attributes, not features. So this change would mean a drastic change in the meaning of the requirement.
> The definition of 'feature' in the glossary now is 'abstraction of real-world phenomena'. To me that sounds suspiciously like 'non-information resource', which means that one could understand this requirement to exclude information resources. 
> In this requirement, 'facts' should be read as a synonym of 'data'. How about just making that change?
> 
> I have just created ISSUE-21 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/21> to mark this as an unresolved issue in the UCR document.
> 
> Regards,
> Frans
>