search

Cross-Domain-Interoperability-Framework / Discovery

Repository for work on CDIF Discoverability workstream
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
1 stars 0 forks source link

Geographic Extent - Horizontal #1

Open smrgeoinfo opened 1 year ago

smrgeoinfo commented 1 year ago

Question from Jay Greenfield, posted July1 in Google Doc: Does this section speak to most or all the spatial data types? More specifically is the scope of this section both vector and raster? If the scope includes raster, do we not want to say anything about bands and/or cell size and/or whether cells are meant to be discrete or continuous with respect to their content? Alternatively, are you suggesting we push any details about the spatial data types into the "serialization profile"? If so, is it your thinking that these serialization profiles are domain independent or domain specific?

PeterParslow commented 2 months ago

My view: that question is not related to "Geographic extent", which would apply equally to raster or vector data. Perhaps "Resource type"? In ISO 19115 vector/raster (& a few others) are values of a "spatial representation" property (with each of vector / raster then having a secondary classification (before getting to format) - regular/irregular grid; point / line / polygon / 3D solid (not that those are the terms used!)

smrgeoinfo commented 2 months ago

At this point, the discovery profile only specifies the 'extent'/footprint for the resource content, with nothing about spatial resolution or representation. That will need to be addressed with extensions, either with discovery or with the data integration profiles. @PeterParslow do you have any suggestions for rdf vocabularies to document information like in the ISO19115 spatial representation sections?

PeterParslow commented 2 months ago

" rdf vocabularies to document information like in the ISO19115 spatial representation sections?"

ISO/TC 211 has this in hand and intends to demonstrate a new RDF implementation of all their (our*) code lists in November 2024. The intention is that they remain at the same URIs stem as now (https://def.isotc211.org/) but get a "proper" web friendly RDF / SKOS response, rather than the library of downloadable RDF currently available at https://def.isotc211.org/ontologies/iso19115/.

*"our" - I chair ISO/TC 211 but I'm not leading this piece of work.

smrgeoinfo commented 2 months ago

Good news! so the URIs might look something like http://def.isotc211.org/iso19115/-1/2018/SpatialRepresentationInformation/MD_Dimension/dimensionName and resolve do a SKOS concept rdf?

PeterParslow commented 2 months ago

Yes; hopefully quite like that.