W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-locadd@w3.org > February 2013

RE: Last telecon: discussion about use cases

From: Feroz Farazi <farazi@disi.unitn.it>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:09:34 +0100
To: "'Ghislain Atemezing'" <auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr>
Cc: "'LocAdd W3C CG Public Mailing list'" <public-locadd@w3.org>, "'Enzo Maltese'" <maltese@dit.unitn.it>
Message-ID: <009201ce0911$707171e0$515455a0$@disi.unitn.it>
Hi Ghislain,

>  - why did you choose geontology:polyline instead of sf:MultiSurface [1]
combine with some serializations from geosparql onto of OGC [2] ?

sf:MultiSurface [1] is relatively new and it seems to me that it was issued
(2012-09-11) some months later than we submitted our paper.

>  - Or event one could ask why didn't you provide any serialization of the
data ?

We will make our data available through CKAN, however, we have used RDF for
serialization and the data publishing work is still in progress.

>  - or why did you choose WGS84 datum for your data?

Because the PAT delivered us coordinates in WGS84 decimal format.

>PS: Btw, an access to your ontology
>(http://www.territorio.provincia.tn.it/geodati/ontology/)

As I said before data publishing is underway. Along with the data we will
publish the ontology too. 

Thank you for your questions.

Feroz.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ghislain Atemezing [mailto:auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:12 AM
To: Feroz Farazi
Cc: 'LocAdd W3C CG Public Mailing list'; Enzo Maltese; atemezin
Subject: Re: Last telecon: discussion about use cases

Hi Feroz,
Thanks for the pointer.. I guess we should agree about what to put in the
use-cases section. And as Phil stated last time, we have already an urgent
one linking with the ORG ontology.
> In [1] particularly in section
> 4.2 we described that conversion of the PAT (Autonomous Province of
> Trento) geographic dataset into RDF necessitates the use of the 
> vocabularies that provide terms such as point, polyline, polygon for 
> encoding drinking water fountains, bicycle tracks and streams, 
> respectively.
Re our paper, it is a real case of converting data from PAT. But here again,
one could as the following:
  - why did you choose geontology:polyline instead of sf:MultiSurface [1]
combine with some serializations from geosparql onto of OGC [2] ?
  - Or event one could ask why didn't you provide any serialization of the
data ?
  - or why did you choose WGS84 datum for your data?

I guess answering such questions could help us define real cases, including
the cases where providers need to encode their data in other SRID.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Best,
Ghislain
PS: Btw, an access to your ontology
(http://www.territorio.provincia.tn.it/geodati/ontology/) returns me a
404 answer...I would be glad to add it in LOV dataset :-)

[1] http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/details/vocabulary_sf.html
[2] http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/details/vocabulary_gsp.html
--
Ghislain Atemezing
EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department Campus SophiaTech 450, route
des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France.
e-mail: auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr & ghislain.atemezing@gmail.com
Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8178
Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~atemezin
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2013 11:08:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 12 February 2013 11:08:43 GMT