BP Theme - BPs to hand over to other WGs in W3C or OGC

Please write here any notes about issues/best practices that should (or could) be handed over to a group other than spatial data on the web

Please indicate which group or even suggest a new group

Datasets

DWBP group is covering this topic -- see Linking_Data#Summary_of_discussion The primary resource type (from SDW perspective) is the feature, datasets are being dealt with by DWBP, geometry and topology are treated as attributes of the feature (just like other data about the feature)

Mappings for semantics

Should we pass this to DWBP --- how mappings to localised purpose-specific ontologies are managed? The consumer should have a path to decode the multiple definitions of "ambulance" in cross-border problems--what is that resoure on the map? PROV has been used effectively for this (See PhilA). We need to have some element here in our BP as it is a well-known geo- issue

Identifiers

This is in DWBP http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#UniqueIdentifiers. Should also cover when to mint a new one and how to assert relationship to -preexisting ones

how to publish and reuse a vocabulary

this is already covered by the linked data best practices group http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-bp/#VOCABULARIES

linking data issue 6 - links should be explicit and discoverable

Consider a Note jointly with the DWBP group looking at formal governed link sets and also search engines -- most likely both. Do we need to create best practice here or is there enough evidence already?

versioning

DWBP best practice 8 -- provide versioning information -- can we reference this and will it do for us? we need

relationships between versions … of an information resource that describe a ‘real-world thing’ e.g. the geometry of a named feature may be updated- either because of a policy change (for administrative geography) or new measurement (for a natural phenomenon) [Best Practice 17: Vocabulary versioning, Best Practice 29: Update the status of identifiers]

structural metadata

DWWBP best practice 4 provide structural metadata should accommodate our needs: ie enabling reconciliation with other vocabularies

thematic semantics

We will look at how to choose a spatial/temporal vocab, but we need DWBP to say how to do this for other thematic semantics, which vocabulary should I use to describe my data

linking across vocabularies and jurisdictions

Propose a new working group on how to discover mappings/crossworks between vocabularies used in other domains from where you start, and to include discovery and traversal of 'backlinks' (not sure I got this right -klt). To be discussed with DWBP who are not currently addressing this.

(Reverse link)

DWBP Best practice 14 use standardised terms says The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) could define the notion of granularity for geospatial datasets, while [DCAT] vocabulary provides a vocabulary reusing the same notion applied to catalogs on the Web. We could help to understand this reference better and possibly help to resolve it in our own work where granularity is especially an issue in coverage

(Reverse link) IoT

DWBP has an interest in IoT but has ruled it out of scope. May reference our work