Re: Geo in RDF (was Re: Censorship?)

Excellent!  Thanks Boris.  The qualitative difference between you links [3] and [4] illustrate my "All (Government) RDF is Local" point nicely, although I might want to rephrase that as "All (Commonwealth) RDF is Local.

data.gov recently published geospatial data (Territorial Limits) on all components (9 I think) of the (US) Pacific Remote Wildlife Refuges.  data.gov has a "[4]" but it needs a "[3]" :o)

--- On Sat, 11/13/10, Boris Villazón Terrazas <bvillazon@fi.upm.es> wrote:

> From: Boris Villazón Terrazas <bvillazon@fi.upm.es>
> Subject: Re: Geo in RDF (was Re: Censorship?)
> To: skw@epimorphics.com
> Cc: public-egov-ig@w3.org
> Date: Saturday, November 13, 2010, 9:11 AM
> Hi Stuart
> 
> We recently exchanged some emails, thanks to Michael
> Hausenblas.
> However, this is my first post this mailing list.
> 
> I only want to point out our ongoing work in the context of
> the GeoLinkedData [1], in which  we are working with
> geospatial data. Basically, we are using geo:lat/geo:long
> style of giving position in WGS84 coordinates. A geospatial
> resource, for example a geoes:Provincia, has a geo:geometry,
> and this geo:geometry consists of a set of geo:points , and
> each geo:point consists of geo:lat and geo:long. You can
> find a figure describing this at [2].
> A specific example, the resource Albacete Provincia at
> [3].
> Also, we have a browser at [4].
> 
> I think this is related with the discussion.
> We can provide further information regarding the conversion
> from GML to RDF we performed.
> 
> 
> Best
> 
> Boris Villazón-Terrazas
> 
> 
> geo: http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#
> [1]: http://geo.linkeddata.es/
> [2] :    http://mccarthy.dia.fi.upm.es/challenge/example1.png
> [3] : http://geo.linkeddata.es/page/resource/Provincia/Albacete
> [4]:     http://geo.linkeddata.es/browser/
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Saturday, 13 November 2010 15:48:06 UTC