W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2011

Fwd: review of the GeoSPARQl specification

From: Carlos Buil Aranda <cbuil@fi.upm.es>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:04:07 +0200
Message-ID: <4D91CAB7.3000805@fi.upm.es>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
  some more comments, these are about what it was discussed in GeoVocamp 
a week ago. There people say that geoSPARQL defines geometry using a 
literal (with GML or WKT) but people in GeoVoCamp think that is is 
important to make geometry explicit in RDF allowing access to different 
representations via content negotation 
(http://vocamp.org/wiki/Geometry-vocab and 
http://code.google.com/p/neogeovocab/ )


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	review of the GeoSPARQl specification
Resent-Date: 	Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:59:29 +0000
Resent-From: 	public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Date: 	Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:57:40 +0200
From: 	Carlos Buil Aranda <cbuil@fi.upm.es>
To: 	SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

Dear all, here come my comments about the GeoSPARQL specification.

There is a typo in item which described LineString class, there 
is the name Curve instead of LineString in the URI identifying the resource

In t he SimpleFeature object from OGC we came up with the following 
questions: to what is referring the ArcString class, is the same class 
than SimpleFeature in OGC? Wht there is no class LinearRing in the 
model? Why compose relations such TIN which is composed by triangles or 
MultiPoint are not taken into account? Why envelope and boundary 
attributes are taken into account as filter function and not as class 

In general this model is widely used, Virtuoso and other implementations 
(like geometry2rdf) in general follow the same approach than the one 
described in the specification.


Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2011 12:04:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:03 UTC