Coverage JSON Definitions

[marqh]

Hello SDW

I am looking into Coverage JSON:
https://www.w3.org/TR/covjson-overview/
http://w3c.github.io/sdw/coverage-json/

and trying to unpack the definitions of terms defined by coverage JSON

I have picked up the link from within the document:
https://covjson.org/context.jsonld
which defines the use of prefixes
https://covjson.org/context.jsonld
which in turn references

    "covjson": "https://covjson.org/def/core#",
    "covjsondt": "https://covjson.org/def/domainTypes#",

However
https://covjson.org/def
404s

this domain covjson.org is resolved by
https://github.com/covjson/covjson.github.io
but this repository does not contain a def, core or domainTypes resource and the repository has not been touched for 2 years.

I would suggest that if CoverageJSON is being managed by W3 then these resources should be managed more effectively.

How would the SDW group feel about providing the definitions for these terms from within the w3 domain?

I am happy to put some effort into this activity and get the definitions published and maintained, if there is interest within the SDW interest group in owning these resources and reviewing the content prior to publishing

please let me know your thoughts on this and any advice on how you might like me to approach this activity

thank you
mark

@BillSwirrl @jonblower

[6a6d74]

Hi Mark ... based on our verbal discussion just now there are two potential issues (that we may choose to factor out into separate GitHub Issues later)

1. The CovJSON context file refers to a covjson prefix; the prefix file associates covjson with https://covjson.org/def/core# which you expect to resolve to provide the definitions for terms used in the CovJSON context; but it doesn’t resolve ... similarly for covjsondt
2. There’s no apparent maintenance on covjson.org; W3 now hosts namespaces - you ask (or imply) whether its appropriate for the covjson & covjsondt namespaces to move accross to https://www.w3.org/ns/...

Having had a look, there’s no evidence to suggest that the core (or other) ontologies ever existed?

Mark is happy to roll up his sleeves to try to write these if someone points him in the right direction.

The second issue requires a response from @jonblower; moving to a W3 namespace would provide future certainty, but would also mean that the community now need to look in a new place etc.

[marqh]

thank you for the response

I agree with the analysis. For now I am concentrating any effort I can put on this into point 1. and the potential content of the context https://covjson.org/def/core#

mark

[jonblower]

Hi @marqh and @6a6d74 - sorry for my slow reply to this. I'm happy in principle for W3 to host the namespace - but we should discuss implications. You're right that there has never been anything at those URLs - they were placeholders only. There ought to be something there!

Although there hasn't been activity at the repository for a while, CovJSON is alive and well - it's just that most of the effort now is in implementation rather than spec development. In fact there has just been an implementation for the Hyrax server (OPeNDAP) - discussed at a recent ESIP meeting.

[marqh]

(continuing asynchronous communications ;)

hello @jonblower

I'm happy in principle for W3 to host the namespace - but we should discuss implications. You're right that there has never been anything at those URLs - they were placeholders only. There ought to be something there!

Discussing implications sounds like a sound step, I suggest over the phone rather than in asynchronous github posts. I'll contact you about this.

thank you
mark