W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > August 2012

RE: GeoSpatial vocabularies

From: Søren Roug <Soren.Roug@eea.europa.eu>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:52:53 +0200
To: 'Thomas Bandholtz' <thomas.bandholtz@innoq.com>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ECDBB484CB145E429AAB0661F935E4E3032849A1A82B@SLOTHMAIL.eea.eu.int>
The Open Source project GeoNetwork catalog application is working on something like this.

This is the proposal: http://trac.osgeo.org/geonetwork/wiki/proposals/DCATandRDFServices

A week ago they set up a demo server, which uses the Semantic sitemap extension to list the available records:

http://geo.titellus.net/internal-catalogue/srv/eng/portal.sitemap?format=rdf

Then one record can be downloaded like this in RDF/XML format:

http://geo.titellus.net:80/internal-catalogue/srv/eng/rdf.metadata.get?uuid=0176688a-1d75-45bc-8419-aaf45a59a72f

>From the look of the RDF, they can certainly use some help. My agency is involved, but I'm not personally.

--
Sincerely yours / Med venlig hilsen, Søren Roug <soren.roug@eea.europa.eu> 
European Environment Agency, Kongens Nytorv 6, DK-1050 Copenhagen K 
Tel: +45 2368 3660 Jabber: roug@jabber.eea.europa.eu
This email was delivered using 100% recycled electrons. Please try to keep it that way.



|| -----Original Message-----
|| From: Thomas Bandholtz [mailto:thomas.bandholtz@innoq.com]
|| Sent: 08 August 2012 16:12
|| To: public-lod@w3.org
|| Subject: Re: GeoSpatial vocabularies
|| 
|| Hi Frans,
|| 
|| you may be right, but we have a European Legislation named INSPIRE [1],
|| and this prescribes OGC standards - among others CSW.
|| However, RDF serialisation may be supported if someone writes what they
|| call "implementing rules".
|| 
|| I just came across an "OWL Application Profile of CSW" OGC discussion
|| paper from 2009 submitted by a) Allworlds Geothinking
|| b) University of Nottingham c) EDINA, University of Edinburgh. This may
|| help as a start.
|| 
|| Best,
|| Thomas
|| 
|| [1] http://inspire.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
|| 
|| Am 08.08.2012 14:40, schrieb Frans Knibbe | Geodan:
|| > Hello Thomas,
|| >
|| > Why do you think an RDF version of OGC Catalog Services is needed?
|| > Don't the regular ways of describing datasets suffice?
|| >
|| > One reason I can think of is that we desperately need some way of
|| > describing the spatial resolution (level of detail, level of
|| > generalization) for datasets. I did suggest this to the GeoSPARQL
|| > working group, but the idea was rejected. But perhaps the concept of
|| > resolution of a dataset (or a single data resource) is not limited to
|| > geospatial data. Other data about real world objects could be captured
|| > or modelled at different levels of detail too. I really wonder if
|| > there already is something out there that could be used to indicate
|| > the resolution of spatial data.
|| >
|| > Regards,
|| > Frans
|| >
|| >
|| > On 8-8-2012 12:36, Thomas Bandholtz wrote:
|| >> Phil,
|| >>
|| >> very good idea.
|| >> Is anybody aware of some RDF for OGC Catalog Services?
|| >> If not I will tinker a draft quite soon.
|| >>
|| >> Best regards
|| >> Thomas
|| >>
|| >>
|| >> Am 06.08.2012 14:46, schrieb Phil Archer:
|| >>> Having been involved with a number of conversations recently, and
|| >>> being aware of many more, I am proposing a new Community Group
|| around
|| >>> vocabularies for describing locations.
|| >>>
|| >>> See http://www.w3.org/community/groups/proposed/#locadd
|| >>>
|| >>> Background
|| >>> ==========
|| >>> This is hardly a new idea and the last thing I want to do is to fall
|| >>> into the XKCD trap [1]. Nevertheless, we have different organisations
|| >>> having similar but separate conversations at the moment, mostly born
|| >>> of different use cases and perspectives. This is normal but I think
|| >>> some sort of coordination could be beneficial.
|| >>>
|| >>> GeoSPARQL
|| >>> =========
|| >>> The OGC has completed work on GeoSPARQL [2]. This is favoured by
|| the
|| >>> likes of (UK mapping agency) Ordnance Survey and has been produced
|| >>> primarily by geospatial experts with an interest in linked data.
|| >>>
|| >>> NeoGeo
|| >>> ======
|| >>> A community effort has produced NeoGeo [3]. This is favoured by the
|| >>> likes of (French mapping agency) IGN and has been produced primarily
|| >>> by linked data experts with an interest in geospatial data.
|| >>>
|| >>> The primary difference between GeoSPARQL and NeoGeo is in the way
|| they
|| >>> handle point, line and polygon literals. Both enjoy significant
|| >>> support and implementation experience.
|| >>>
|| >>>
|| >>> INSPIRE
|| >>> =======
|| >>> Is a European Commission Directive that legally obliges the Member
|| >>> States of the European Union to publish environmental and geospatial
|| >>> data using a common set of standards which are under various stages of
|| >>> development [4].
|| >>>
|| >>>
|| >>> ISA Programme Location Core Vocabulary
|| >>> ======================================
|| >>> Produced by a working group chaired by the team responsible for the
|| >>> development of INSPIRE under the auspices of a different part of the
|| >>> European Commission, this very lightweight vocabulary includes
|| >>> properties and classes for describing locations and for recording
|| >>> addresses in a manner conformant with INSPIRE - a feature not shared
|| >>> by vCARD for example. Now a work item of the W3C Government
|| Linked
|| >>> Data WG [5], the vocabulary needs further community review and
|| >>> refinement [6].
|| >>>
|| >>>
|| >>> schema.org
|| >>> ==========
|| >>> Includes basic classes and properties for locations including:
|| >>> - addresses (a clone of vCard) http://schema.org/PostalAddress
|| >>> - lat/long (a clone of WGS84) http://schema.org/GeoCoordinates
|| >>> - geoShape (including boc, circle, line & polygon)
|| >>> http://schema.org/GeoShape
|| >>>
|| >>> It inherits things like name, URL and description from
|| >>> schema.org/Thing which are at least analogous to things like
|| >>> Geographic Names and Geographic Identifiers.
|| >>>
|| >>> schema.org includes containedIn but not, AFAICT, borders etc. The
|| >>> schema.org location properties seem closely linked with event
|| >>> vocabulary. Classes include Mountain, Body of Water, Continent etc.
|| >>>
|| >>> The current list of proposed extensions to schema.org [7] does not
|| >>> include anything in this space and there is no (visibly active)
|| >>> discussion associated with schema.org and location.
|| >>>
|| >>>
|| >>> W3C Point of Interest
|| >>> =====================
|| >>> I'm sorry to say that the Points of Interest WG [8] seems to have hit
|| >>> the buffers so that the March 2012 draft [9] looks like being as far
|| >>> as it gets. This just at a time when more and more data is being
|| >>> published, a lot of it related to locations and, well, points of
|| >>> interest. The ideas behind the POI WG remain as important as ever but
|| >>> it seems that a new focus is necessary if that work is to be leveraged
|| >>> effectively.
|| >>>
|| >>>
|| >>> Standards bodies
|| >>> ================
|| >>> OGC and W3C are both willing to help if required but what actually
|| >>> *is* required? That's what the proposed community group is to find
|| >>> out. When we know that, we can look at where any work should be
|| done.
|| >>> Like any membership organisation, both W3C and OGC put the wishes
|| of
|| >>> their members first. Both bodies are very willing to work together.
|| >>>
|| >>>
|| >>> Possible outcomes
|| >>> =================
|| >>> One possible outcome is a standard that is backwards compatible with
|| >>> GeoSPARQL and NeoGeo and that combines aspects of both. The
|| danger
|| >>> there is that this would lead to an over-complex standard that could
|| >>> never be fully implemented - which is about as big a pointless waste
|| >>> of time as can be imagined. However, the two are close and common
|| >>> ground shouldn't be hard to find.
|| >>>
|| >>> At the other extreme is that everyone carries on in in their own way
|| >>> and, well, people can pick and choose. This seems less than ideal to
|| >>> me. If interoperability between data sets is important then we need to
|| >>> make some effort to coordinate.
|| >>>
|| >>> The gaps seem to be around linked-data friendly INSPIRE standards,
|| >>> particularly wrt addresses, and in handling geometry literals that can
|| >>> be huge (no one is talking about yet another way to define points
|| >>> lines and polygons btw!).
|| >>>
|| >>> What I hope the proposed group could achieve is:
|| >>>
|| >>> - consensus on the use cases/gaps that need be filled;
|| >>> - at least a rough solution that takes full account of the existing
|| >>> work highlighted here.
|| >>>
|| >>> If that can be done, the GLD WG's charter would allow it to take this
|| >>> through the W3C Recommendations Track, assuming the continued
|| support
|| >>> and interest of the community. The WG itself does not have the
|| >>> resources and geospatial expertise to see this through on its own.
|| >>>
|| >>> If this interests you, do please join the Community Group at
|| >>> http://www.w3.org/community/groups/proposed/#locadd and post
|| your
|| >>> ideas.
|| >>>
|| >>> Thank you
|| >>>
|| >>> Phil.
|| >>>
|| >>>
|| >>>
|| >>> [1] http://xkcd.com/927/
|| >>> [2] http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/geosparql
|| >>> [3] http://geovocab.org/doc/neogeo/
|| >>> [4] http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/index.cfm/pageid/2
|| >>> [5] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/
|| >>> [6] http://philarcher.org/isa/locn-v1.00.html although officially I
|| >>> should point you to
|| http://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/core_location/home
|| >>> [7] http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/SchemaDotOrgProposals
|| >>> [8] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/
|| >>> [9] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/documents/Core/core-
|| 20111216.html
|| >>>
|| >>>
|| >>
|| >
|| >
|| >
|| 
|| 
|| --
|| Thomas Bandholtz
|| Principal Consultant
|| 
|| innoQ Deutschland GmbH
|| Krischerstr. 100,
|| D-40789 Monheim am Rhein, Germany
|| http://www.innoq.com
|| thomas.bandholtz@innoq.com
|| +49 178 4049387
|| 
|| http://innoq.com/de/themen/linked-data (German)
|| https://github.com/innoq/iqvoc/wiki/Linked-Data (English)
|| 
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2012 11:53:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:42 UTC