Re: A proposal for two additional properties for LOCN

Hello Oscar,

Thank you for you comments! Let me reflect on them in bullet points:

  * crs or coordinateReferenceSystem? The difference is clear. The first
    is easier to spell, so there is less risk of typos. The latter is
    better at conveying the meaning of the term, but that is not really
    necessary because other elements serve that purpose.  This issue
    just made me wonder whether there are any naming conventions for RDF
    vocabularies. I did find some, but no recommendations on the usage
    of abbreviations or acronyms. If we make it locn:crs, shouldn't it
    be locn:cRS if camel casing is applied rigorously?
  * The reason for wanting to associate a CRS with a dataset is that it
    allows selecting datasets from a collection of datasets (a catalog,
    or the entire web) based on that criterion. For instance, when
    geographical data are plotted in a map, the map has a certain CRS.
    It makes sense to limit dataset selection to matching CRSes. Also,
    such a property could be assigned to collections of geometries to
    relieve a data publisher from having to repeat the CRS for each and
    every geometry (although I would be doubtful about such a practice,
    because the CRS it rather vital for interpretation of the coordinates).
    That being said, I do think there is a lot of merit to leaving the
    domain unspecified. My idea was to make it clear that the property
    could or should be used in dataset metadata too. But perhaps just
    explaining that in the comment is sufficient. I also wondered if
    there could not be other collections of geometries next to datasets
    that one would want to associate a CRS with, now or in the future.
    That consideration also means the domain is best left unspecified.

Regards,
Frans


On 2014-09-02 20:34, Oscar Corcho wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>>
> Fecha: lunes, 1 de septiembre de 2014 14:49
> Para: LocAdd W3C CG Public Mailing list <public-locadd@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-locadd@w3.org>>
> Asunto: A proposal for two additional properties for LOCN
> Nuevo envío de: <public-locadd@w3.org <mailto: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_with_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>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
------------------------------------------------------------------------