-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Separate SHACL-shape for 'Georeference' #34
Comments
Created the Georefernce shape in the branch Ontology_Georeference |
What is not completley clear to me: |
TOPIC EPSG Code: Valid values are 4 or 5 digit integers ranging from 1024 and 32767 with officially defined georeferece meanings. Custom 5 digit codes larger than that numbers are allowed. Additonally there should be the option to give no data might be in just a catesian coordinate system with no "earth relation". To allow only valid EPSG codes, i would suggest to either include another attribute like islocal, isearthrelated. So no you migth say, we can leave the georeference completly (e.g. for a completly artificial dataset, e.g. the CARLA town). |
@MircoNierenz We might define the SHACL with giving the type of projection string in one attribute and then the corresponding string in the actual defintion of the coordinate system. But in this case a potential marketplace (@jtdemer demer) the user would either have to know about all the projection strings, or the marketplace would have to unify them again, to provide one type for filtering. My opinion is just to use EPSG, but I would also go with another solution, if requested by other data provider / consumer. |
is answered here: #6 (comment) |
Hm... I'm not quiet sure. Somehow it could be interesting for a user to have some knowlegde about the synthetic drivable area in a scenario. |
in our discussion we came up to make to optional fields:
local than means that there is no scale within this map, all projected map showing something from the real world have usally a distance scaling within (UTM, GK) |
That sounds good from my point of view. @MircoNierenz we also discussed the XOR relationship between those two fields. I think with specifying local would be also fine. However, regarding the data types it will become a bit difficult, right?
|
EPSG:
@heuerfin @MircoNierenz: let's discuss this at the meeting next week |
I would try to add an or condition in shacl: |
@MircoNierenz @heuerfin @3Dbastian Is this done? |
The PLC-specific SHACL-shape for domain-specific metadata of scenarios includes attributes regarding georeferences. As aligned in AP 3.3 / data-provider-meeting, we would like to use those attributes also for other data categories in a similar way. Therefore we need a separate folder, ontology and SHACL-shape for georeference.
I will delete the georeference-related parts from the scenario-SHACL and copy it hereby. Please take it as a starting point for the new shape.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: