- From: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 17:49:41 +0100
- To: Kostis Kyzirakos <Kostis.Kyzirakos@cwi.nl>
- CC: Frans Knibbe | Geodan <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, LocAdd W3C CG Public Mailing list <public-locadd@w3.org>
Hello Kostis, > In the GIS world, a geographic feature is usually identified by a > geographic identifier. You made a clear case why it is important to preserve this geographic identifier in the representation of a geographic feature. From what you're saying, in the US, this GNIS ID is a literal. Is it always true? In the RDF world, this geographic object will have a URI as identifier. There is a need to have a property for which the value will be this geographic identifier so that other tools/datasets/processing chains/infrastructure in general can make use of it. In the current vocabulary locn vocabulary, the property rdfs:seeAlso is hijacked which is not a good practice IMHO. More precisely, the locn vocabulary provides a new rdfs:label to this property defined in another ns. Are you arguing that the locn vocabulary should have its own geographical identifier property? How such a property would be defined? What constraints (if any) should be put on the range of this property? Best regards. Raphaël -- Raphaël Troncy EURECOM, Campus SophiaTech Multimedia Communications Department 450 route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France. e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242 Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/
Received on Friday, 3 January 2014 16:50:09 UTC