I think that the common factor here is the W3C RDF Data Cube Vocabulary/Ontology abstraction (QB), and any data structure in OGC should be able to trace their 'roots' back to an abstract cube. There are some gaps in the W3C specialisations/restrictions of QB that should inform future joint OGC/W3C work.
Example 1: a 'map' is a projection of a 3/4D space which contains 'features' of interest, which have been filtered out of a bigger underlying QB of features.
Example 2: A tile or tileset is a partition of an underlying QB.
These are the unifying conceptual models, not implementations.
I think that the common factor here is the W3C RDF Data Cube Vocabulary/Ontology abstraction (QB), and any data structure in OGC should be able to trace their 'roots' back to an abstract cube. There are some gaps in the W3C specialisations/restrictions of QB that should inform future joint OGC/W3C work. Example 1: a 'map' is a projection of a 3/4D space which contains 'features' of interest, which have been filtered out of a bigger underlying QB of features. Example 2: A tile or tileset is a partition of an underlying QB. These are the unifying conceptual models, not implementations.