Re: A proposal for two additional properties for LOCN

On 2014-09-04 10:04, Andrea Perego wrote:
> Thanks for preparing the proposal, Frans.
>
> My comments below:
>
> 1. For both properties, I wouldn't specify their domain and range, but
> I would add a usage note. I would also define them only as
> rdf:Property's, at least for the moment.
For now I have removed the domain restrictions from the wiki page (they 
are struck through).  I left the range specifications in place for now, 
pending further discussion.
>
> 2. Should these properties be made more generic, so that they can be
> used also to specify the temporal ref system / resolution?
This relates back to the space and time talk 
<https://www.w3.org/community/locadd/wiki/Space_and_Time>.  Was there a 
clear conclusion to be drawn from that?

My opinion still is that there is no reason to handle space and time in 
the same vocabulary. I think it is better if concepts for location and 
concepts for time are developed in different vocabularies, overseen by 
the respective domain experts.  It is true that publishers of location 
data can have a great need of temporal expressiveness and that there is 
a current lack of a good time ontology, but still I think the concerns 
are best left separate.

>
> 3. For (spatial) resolution, I think we should find a way to specify
> arbitrary units of measure - I wouldn't exclude a priori the
> possibility of encoding them as literals (e.g., 5m, 100x100px).
If the spatial resolution is a number, some very convenient ways of 
using it can be thought of. For example:

  * "Give me the geometry of the city of Paris with the highest spatial
    resolution"
  * "Give me all datasets about vegetation in Poland with a spatial
    resolution between 100 and 500 meters"

Now if the range of spatialResolution is left unspecified, wouldn't that 
discourage this kind of usage? And wouldn't it discourage data 
publishers to specify the spatial resolution is a useful way?
If the spatialResolution is not a number with a specified unit (meters), 
I am afraid that it can not be used effectively for automated data 
processing, that it would always require a human to make sense of the value.

Regards,
Frans

>
> Andrea
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 2:22 AM,  <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:
>> Ø  As for using xsd:anyURI, I am happy with it (I would probably prefer
>> having a class CRS with instances for it
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Yes – I do not like to see anyURI as the range for anything, except for a
>> property whose job is to assign an identifier.
>>
>> If you want to defer specifying a range, then make it an owl:ObjectProperty
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Oscar Corcho [mailto:ocorcho@fi.upm.es]
>> Sent: Wednesday, 3 September 2014 4:34 AM
>> To: Frans Knibbe | Geodan; LocAdd W3C CG Public Mailing list
>> Subject: 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: 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:
>>
>> Are the semantics of the two properties really absent from the semantic web
>> at the moment?
>> Is the Location Core Vocabulary an appropriate place to add them?
>> 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 | 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>
------------------------------------------------------------------------