Re: A proposal for two additional properties for LOCN

Dear Frans,

For the use cases that I have in mind, the first one covers well the needs
that I had. I would probably use a shorter qName, such as locn:crs, which
should be in general well understood.

With respect to the domain, I cannot understand well why you want to
associated it to a Dataset, and I would probably leave it associated to
locn:Geometry, or even leave the domain unspecified.

As for using xsd:anyURI, I am happy with it (I would probably prefer having
a class CRS with instances for it, as I think that was suggested by Ghislain
Atemezing some time ago, but having the anyURI datatype seems sufficient to
me at this point.

Oscar

-- 

Oscar Corcho
Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
Facultad de Informática
Campus de Montegancedo s/n
Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, España
Tel. (+34) 91 336 66 05
Fax  (+34) 91 352 48 19

De:  Frans Knibbe | Geodan <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
Fecha:  lunes, 1 de septiembre de 2014 14:49
Para:  LocAdd W3C CG Public Mailing list <public-locadd@w3.org>
Asunto:  A proposal for two additional properties for LOCN
Nuevo envío de:  <public-locadd@w3.org>
Fecha de nuevo envío:  Mon, 01 Sep 2014 12:50:48 +0000

    
 Hello all,
 
 I have made a wiki page for a provisional proposal for the addition of two
new properties to the Location Core Vocabulary
<https://www.w3.org/community/locadd/wiki/Proposal_for_extension_of_LOCN_wit
h_properties_for_Coordinate_Reference_System_and_Level_of_Detail> : CRS and
spatial resolution. I would welcome your thoughts and comments.
 
 The proposal is based on earlier discussions on this list. I am not certain
about any of it, but I think starting with certain definitions can help in
eventually getting something that is good to work with.
 
 Some questions that I can come up with are:
 
1. Are the semantics of the two properties really absent from the semantic
web at the moment? 
2. Is the Location Core Vocabulary an appropriate place to add them?
3. Is the proposed way of modelling the two properties right? Could
conflicts with certain use cases occur?
 

More detailed questions are on the wiki page.
 
 

Regards,
 Frans
 
 


 
 
 

 Frans Knibbe
 Geodan
 President Kennedylaan 1
 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)
 
 T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
 E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
 www.geodan.nl <http://www.geodan.nl>  | disclaimer
<http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>