[OSGeo-Standards] Standard for orientation tools
bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com
Fri Sep 3 17:36:20 PDT 2021
(@Rob A, please see question to you below)
I can see that this is an issue that you are passionate about.
Thank you for raising it with the list.
At the moment, I’m more focussed with lifting the level of discussion on open spatial standards within our community and do not wish to get diverted towards a single issue.
Some immediate thoughts after having a quick look at the references provided below:
There are many ways of addressing spatial issues.
It will usually depend on the specific context that an individual, or community is trying to address to find the appropriate approach for that context.
Using an analogy, it is my experience that "one size, does not fit all”.
So what is right for one context, may not be appropriate for another.
I recall a good example from number of years ago when I was working in the geoscience domain.
We were modelling surface geology.
The data was created by geoscientists interpreting a set of field observations, soil samples, drill hole data, aeromagnetics etc.
They developed a dataset covering an area. This dataset was a subjective representation of the available facts.
With more source observations, the subjective representation could, and did, change.
Several years after the dataset was created, we found that a different government department had implemented laws that referenced that dataset as an authoritative source for an entirely different purpose.
To the geoscientists, the legislated use of the data was entirely inappropriate and a misuse of ’their’ data.
To those that defined the laws, the use of the data was essential as there was no appropriate alternative.
This difference in use and requirements is embedded as a foundation within open spatial standards.
Standards are expected to address the “Universe of Discourse” within their conceptual modelling and define the context that the standard is expected to address.
Most standards are quite generic, however some can be very specific to domain requirements that they are addressing, e.g. the WaterML 2 suite of standards to the Hydrology domain.
@Rob A (and others),
Can you think of a good ***introductory*** reference that effectively describes the “Universe of Discourse” concept?
> On 4 Sep 2021, at 01:17, Munich Orientation Convention <volksnav at volksnav.de> wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
> your vita, including your work for ISO TC 211, let me be sure that you’re the right person to moderate a consumer friendly discussion about a standard demand which OSM could easily cover www.volksnav.de/aSimpleCircle <http://www.volksnav.de/aSimpleCircle>.
> I’d like to start with two questions:
> does a demand for consumer friendly location codes www.volksnav.de/alternatives <http://www.volksnav.de/alternatives> exist or not?
> If yes, why doesn’t OSM think about an own solution or recommend the best alternative?
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Standards at lists.osgeo.org>
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards