Re: UCR issue 30: missing requirement

Its always possible to put text annotation - do we need to say anything
about this at all?  If on the other hand we have a domain specific
relationship, this is just a modelling problem that is addressed by the
reuse of vocabularies BP - your community should publish the terms it cares
about as a reusable vocabulary, and people should re-use these if suitable,?

Rob

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 at 20:31 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:

> I would like to get back to the business of resolving ISSUE-30
> <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/30>. Here is a more
> concrete proposal:
>
> Currently the Spatial Vagueness requirement
> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#SpatialVagueness>
> reads:
>
> *It should be possible to describe locations in a vague, imprecise manner.
> For instance, to represent spatial descriptions from crowdsourced
> observations, such as "we saw a wildfire at the bottom of the hillside" or
> "we felt a light tremor while walking by Los Angeles downtown". Another
> related use case deals with spatial locations identified in historical
> texts, e.g. a battle occurred at the south west boundary of the Roman
> Empire.*
>
> We could change it to:
>
> *It should be possible for vague or informal expressions of locations or
> spatial relationships to be useful as spatial data.*
>
> *Examples of vague or informal expressions of locations are:*
>
>
>
>    -
> *at the bottom of the hillside *
>    - *downtown Los Angeles*
>    - *London (has multiple definitions, so just the name is not precise)*
>
>
>    -
> *the southwest boundary of the Roman Empire *
>
> *Examples of vague or informal expressions of **spatial relationships
> are:*
>
>    - *near*
>    - *across the street from*
>    - *upstairs*
>    - *at walking distance from*
>
>
> Are there objections to this change? If so, do you have a alternative?
> Do we feel that this adequately solves ISSUE-30?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Frans
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 19 August 2016 at 12:22, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
>
>> On 19 August 2016 at 04:10, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> while I'm looking over the requirements document, I notice that there
>>> are quite a lot of requirements about observations and coverages, such as
>>>  "5.30 Observed property in coverage"  but no explicit mention of a
>>> requirement to state the units of measure.  Perhaps simply update 5.30 to
>>> include this?
>>>
>>> Likewise, the only mention of precision is in the cultural heritage use
>>> case - i would have thought there was a requirement to be able to state the
>>> spatial and temporal precision of values. In many ways this one of the
>>> defining requirement for making spatial "special" in terms of a BP ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> I think that both requirements are missing because they are not in scope.
>> If the value of a measurement is published it makes general sense to
>> indicate the unit of measure. Likewise it is a common requirement to
>> indicate the uncertainty or precision of a measurement. That goes for all
>> numerical data, not only spatial or temporal data.
>>
>> In fact the requirements are out of scope for data on the web too. If
>> measurement data are published *anywhere* there should be means of
>> stating the unit of measurement and the uncertainty. This was rightly
>> reported to me when I commented on a missing best practise for using
>> significant digits in the Data on the Web Best Practises document.
>>
>> So yes, the coverage specification should allow for indication of units
>> of measurement and uncertainty, but the way we have been working is that we
>> understand those requirements to be known general requirements. We have
>> been trying to scope the explicit requirements to spatiotemporal data
>> only.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Frans
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Rob
>>>
>>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 at 11:58 Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mainly it was looking ahead :-)  But IMHO it is important to get the
>>>> intent, then wording, of such requirements right - is it for there to be
>>>> guidance for how a community might solve such a problem, or is it for
>>>> interoperability in the broader ecosystem of tools - i.e. the community is
>>>> the virtual community of  W3C or OGC standards implementers.
>>>>
>>>> GeoSPARQL is the latter case,
>>>> CRS definitions is the former - but one where the OGC makes
>>>> recommendations and uses specific CRS definitions as defaults in some
>>>> specifications.
>>>>
>>>> The key thing for this requirement is whether vague descriptions are
>>>> a) purely textual annotations (in which case we probably dont need to
>>>> say anything about them at all in the BP)
>>>> b) qualifications for a geometry property (in which case we probably
>>>> want to define a vocabulary to identify such properties, and how to bind
>>>> these to multiple geometries in a single feature - perhaps annotations need
>>>> to apply to all provided geometries)
>>>> c) machine-readable constructs (possibly with qualifications) - i.e.
>>>> the ability to say A isNear B
>>>>
>>>> I would suggest its necessary for a BP to handle machine readable
>>>> location descriptions with human readable annotations, i.e. cases b,c where
>>>> A relatedTo B  and either A or B is a spatialThing. Note this covers
>>>> providing a note about geometry per feature.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, I'd be tempted to say - in the BP - if the relationship can be
>>>> expressed using the GeoSPARQL specification, then this should be used,
>>>> either directly or by specialisation to introduce domain specific semantics
>>>>  domain-independent spatial operation. Otherwise follow the general BP
>>>> regarding vocabulary re-use.
>>>>
>>>> In, for example hydrology, a description of where a stream gauge is
>>>> located relative to a stream confluence is actually far more precise than a
>>>> coordinate somewhere near the confluence - which may be upstream,
>>>> downstream or at the actual confluence in fact.
>>>>
>>>> In the Requirements, therefore, I'd be tempted to rephrase
>>>> "vague,imprecise"  to "non-coordinate based" - and then identify the above
>>>> cases and state which is in scope.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 at 20:37 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello Rob,
>>>>>
>>>>> Was your comment intended as criticism of the proposed rephrasing of
>>>>> the spatial vagueness requirement? Or is it only looking ahead to
>>>>> possibilities of meeting such a requirement?
>>>>>
>>>>> Although the primary concern of this thread is to formulate the right
>>>>> requirement(s), I must admit in this particular case it is interesting to
>>>>> think of possible ways of making it possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again I think a spatial ontology could be really helpful. Let's take
>>>>> some examples of text that might be turned into spatial data:
>>>>>
>>>>>    1. The Carthaginian army was defeated near the southwest border of
>>>>>    the Roman empire.
>>>>>    2. The suspect moved from the entrance of the bank to a red car
>>>>>    that was parked near the post box.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first example might come from a historical source and the second
>>>>> could be an example of crowd sourced data, two use cases in which vague
>>>>> spatial data are typically encountered.
>>>>>
>>>>> A hypothetical spatial ontology will have definitions of the concepts
>>>>> of 'spatial thing' and 'spatial relationship'. So at least we could flag
>>>>> the locations and the spatial relationships in these statements as such.
>>>>> That could already be helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now in the first example it is imaginable that a resource exists that
>>>>> defines the terms used in a domain context. Historians studying the Roman
>>>>> empire could make a vocabulary in which the general classes for
>>>>> location and spatial relationships are specialised. It could have a
>>>>> collection of linestrings marking the borders of the empire through
>>>>> time, and it could have a definition of the spatial relationship 'near',
>>>>> which in historical Roman texts could always mean 'a distance of at most
>>>>> one day's marching'. Furthermore, the spot where the battle took
>>>>> place could be represented as a 2D point geometry with unknown coordinates
>>>>> (by the way, a possible example of why the coordinates should not be a
>>>>> mandatory part of a geometry).
>>>>>
>>>>> For crowd sourced information, definitions of vague terms that are
>>>>> used will probably be more difficult to outsource to domain vocabularies.
>>>>> Definitions of terms can be as diverse as the crowds using the terms. But
>>>>> at least flagging the locations and spatial relationships using the general
>>>>> spatial ontology could be useful.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Frans
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18 August 2016 at 01:10, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> IMHO this is covered by the general vocabulary re-use clause - such
>>>>>> vague terms are domain specific semantics - therefore in general you should
>>>>>> look to re-use a set of relationship properties, as defined in an ontology,
>>>>>> published by the community of practice you intend your data to be
>>>>>> understood by/interoperable with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In general, one should look first  to the OGC for spatial concerns,
>>>>>> to see if such a community has either published what you need, or has a
>>>>>> governance structure in place (a Domain Working Group) where such a
>>>>>> vocabulary can be shared. (note that OGC will reference relevant
>>>>>> vocabularies published by other SDOs.... so its a sensible starting point
>>>>>> IMHO)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rob
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 at 23:10 Joshua Lieberman <
>>>>>> jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can we distinguish between qualitative relationships such "bottom of
>>>>>>> the hillside” which are as precise as the features being referenced,  and
>>>>>>> fuzzy ones such as “near the hillside” that explicitly use imprecise
>>>>>>> relationships?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Josh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 17, 2016, at 9:00 AM, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear group members, especially the BP editors,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would be great if we can resolve this sleeping issue
>>>>>>> <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/30> before the next
>>>>>>> PWD of the UC&R document. To summarise the issue, it seems clear
>>>>>>> what the requirement is: there is a need to be able to use
>>>>>>> vague/informal/colloquial expressions to refer to either spatial things or
>>>>>>> spatial relationships.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I still think the easiest solution is to change the existing Spatial
>>>>>>> vagueness
>>>>>>> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#SpatialVagueness>
>>>>>>> requirement a bit. The core requirement would then be something like "It
>>>>>>> should be possible to use vague or informal expressions to indicate
>>>>>>> locations or spatial relationships". That requirement could be followed by
>>>>>>> some examples:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for locations:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    - at the bottom of the hillside
>>>>>>>    - downtown Los Angeles
>>>>>>>    - London (has multiple definitions, so just the name is not
>>>>>>>    precise)
>>>>>>>    - the south west boundary of the Roman Empire
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for spatial relationships:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    - near
>>>>>>>    - across the street from
>>>>>>>    - upstairs
>>>>>>>    - at walking distance from
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Frans
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 20 October 2015 at 14:04, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2015-10-16 11:15 GMT+02:00 Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Frans-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure that your option (1) covers the terms used for
>>>>>>>>> 'vague' (or, more accurately, _relative_) spatial relationships. I think
>>>>>>>>> that we might want to refer to the location of a post box unambiguously,
>>>>>>>>> based on it's position within a topological (road) network; e.g. 150 from
>>>>>>>>> the junction of roads A and B in the direction of [etc.] ... the junction
>>>>>>>>> (a node in the network) might have a geometric position (e.g. collected by
>>>>>>>>> a surveyor with GPS), but the position of street furniture may be recorded
>>>>>>>>> using relative positions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We already have a requirement for being able to use spatial
>>>>>>>> relationships, see the Spatial relationships requirement
>>>>>>>> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#SpatialRelationships>.
>>>>>>>> If that requirement is met, it should be possible to express the location
>>>>>>>> of a post box relative to some topographic or topological point, wouldn't
>>>>>>>> you say?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, the ability to be vague about relative positioning does
>>>>>>>> not seem to have been addressed yet. One might want to say that a post box
>>>>>>>> is close to the butcher shop, or over the road from the bakery.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Frans
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does that help?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 at 13:17 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rachel and Jeremy, thank you for helping us solve this case.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So this is about being able to use colloquial terms for both
>>>>>>>>>> location and spatial relationships. It seems to me that the first
>>>>>>>>>> part, colloquial terms for location is basically covered by the Spatial
>>>>>>>>>> vagueness requirement
>>>>>>>>>> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#SpatialVagueness>.
>>>>>>>>>> Interestingly enough, this requirement has not been related to the Best
>>>>>>>>>> Practices requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What we could do is:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    1. Rephrase the spatial vagueness requirement a bit to make
>>>>>>>>>>    it clearly cover examples like “the midlands”, “town centre”, how different
>>>>>>>>>>    people define “London”.
>>>>>>>>>>    2. Relate the spatial vagueness requirement to the Locating a
>>>>>>>>>>    Thing use case
>>>>>>>>>>    <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#LocatingAThing>
>>>>>>>>>>    and the Best Practices deliverable
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For the requirement to be able to use colloquial terms for
>>>>>>>>>> spatial relationships we could either expand the definition of
>>>>>>>>>> the Spatial vagueness requirement, or add a new requirement, so that we end
>>>>>>>>>> up with separate requirements for spatial vagueness for locations and
>>>>>>>>>> spatial vagueness for relationships. I would favour the first option, to
>>>>>>>>>> keep things simple, and because there is of plenty of overlap between the
>>>>>>>>>> requirements.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Frans
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2015-10-13 18:03 GMT+02:00 Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi-
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Rachel is correct; 'Locating a thing' [1] (provided by
>>>>>>>>>>> @eparsons) is the source of this requirement. The description provided in
>>>>>>>>>>> her message is accurate. Ed also uses phrases like "upstairs", "where I
>>>>>>>>>>> left it" etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's not about geocoding; it's about relating position in human
>>>>>>>>>>> terms ... all about context.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, there are already some reasonable models from OGC about
>>>>>>>>>>> describing relative positioning - usually related to position within a
>>>>>>>>>>> topological network offset from a node in that network (e.g. position of
>>>>>>>>>>> signage on a railway, position of a lamp post on a street etc.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [1]:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#LocatingAThing
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 at 17:37 Heaven, Rachel E. <reh@bgs.ac.uk>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Frans
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like this is from the “Locating a thing” use case,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Working_Use_Cases#Locating_a_thing
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s about vernacular geography :  human terms for relative
>>>>>>>>>>>> spatial positioning (“upstairs”, “over the road from”) and human concepts
>>>>>>>>>>>> of places (“the midlands”, “town centre”, how different people define
>>>>>>>>>>>> “London”). These extents are usually vague and do not match official
>>>>>>>>>>>> authoritative boundaries, so you can’t geocode them accurately, if at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It will also be very relevant to harvesting crowd sourced data
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Working_Use_Cases#Crowd_sourced_earthquake_observation_information_.28Best_Practice.2CSSN.29
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rachel
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *From:* Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* 09 October 2015 14:11
>>>>>>>>>>>> *To:* SDW WG Public List; Kerry Taylor; Jeremy Tandy
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* UCR issue 30: missing requirement
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the thread for discussion of UCR issue 30
>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/30>, the Case of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Mysterious Missing Requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The current description reads: '*see " relative (spatial)
>>>>>>>>>>>> relationships based on context e.g. my location [expressing location and
>>>>>>>>>>>> places in human terms] " from *
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidated_Narratives#linking_data
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Consolidated_Narratives#linking_data>'. Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>> might know what use case it came from.'*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To me is not exactly clear yet what the requirement could be.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Resolving location names in human terms to geometry is called geocoding and
>>>>>>>>>>>> is a well established practice. Could this be about the need for having
>>>>>>>>>>>> human language equivalents for spatial relations? I can see that would be a
>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit for finding spatial data using a search engine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If we find the related use case(s) we will probably get a
>>>>>>>>>>>> better idea of what the missing requirement could look like,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Frans
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only.
>>>>>>>>>>>> NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of
>>>>>>>>>>>> this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is
>>>>>>>>>>>> exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be
>>>>>>>>>>>> stored in an electronic records management system.
>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>