- 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>
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