Re: Agenda for Best Practice sub-group, 14:00UTC 1-June-2016

On 01/06/2016 14:43, matthew perry wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> The Feature subClassOf SpatialObject does seem a bit awkward in
> retrospect. The main idea was that for qualitative spatial reasoning, we
> don't need quantitative geometries. It should be possible to express
> topological relations between features directly (e.g., New York inside
> United States), so we defined SpatialObject as the class of things that
> can have topological relations, and Feature and Geometry are disjoint
> subClasses of SpatialObject.

Thanks, Matt.

Coming back to the comparison with ISO, does this mean then that, in 
GeoSPARQL, :SpatialObject subsumes also the notion of "real-world 
phaenomena", and not only features (GFI_Feature) and geometries 
(GM_Object)?

Andrea


> Thanks,
> Matt
>
>
> On 6/1/2016 4:58 AM, Clemens Portele wrote:
>> Hm, yes, good question. I did not remember that we made geo:Feature a
>> geo:SpatialObject in the GeoSPARQL development. I agree with you, from
>> the definitions this seems wrong. Perhaps that could be rediscussed,
>> if there is a GeoSPARQL revision.
>>
>> Clemens
>>
>> On 1. Juni 2016 at 10:38:24, Andrea Perego
>> (<mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu) wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Clemens.
>>>
>>> On 01/06/2016 8:26, Clemens Portele wrote:
>>> > If we use 19107 as the basis, a TP_Object is a SpatialObject, too.
>>> >
>>> > This is the definition of "topological object" (the TP_Object):
>>> > "spatial object representing spatial characteristics that are
>>> invariant
>>> > under continuous transformations".
>>> >
>>> > The definition of "geometric object" (the GM_Object) is: "spatial
>>> object
>>> > representing a geometric set" where geometric set is "a set of
>>> points".
>>> >
>>> > GeoSPARQL is consistent with this, geo:Geometry is a sub-class of
>>> > geo:SpatialObject. If we would define xyz:Topology it should be a
>>> > sub-class of geoSpatialObject, too.
>>>
>>> What is unclear to me is why, in GeoSPARQL, feature is made a subclass
>>> of spatial object.
>>>
>>> Putting together the relevant ISO definitions:
>>> - feature: "abstraction of real-world phenomena" (ISO 19101, 19107,
>>> 19109, 19156)
>>> - spatial object: "object used for representing a spatial characteristic
>>> of a feature" (ISO 19107)
>>> - geometry (geometric object): "spatial object representing a geometric
>>> set" (ISO 19107)
>>>
>>> Based on them, a feature is not a spatial object - or I'm missing
>>> something?
>>>
>>> Andrea
>>>
>>>
>>> > Clemens
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 1. Juni 2016 at 03:37:53, Joshua Lieberman
>>> > (jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com
>>> <mailto:jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>) wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Yes, a GM_object instance is generally a geometry, but there can be
>>> >> other spatial objects such as linear references, addresses,
>>> >> placenames, etc. I’m pondering now whether TP_Object should also be a
>>> >> subclass of SpatialObject, but I think it too is a form of spatial
>>> model.
>>> >>
>>> >> “Object” is vague, but possibly less confusing than “model” or
>>> >> “representation”. The confusion may be a fundamental property of the
>>> >> GFM, because one first models the worlds as features, then models the
>>> >> features in turn as spatial objects. Making both feature and geometry
>>> >> disjoint subclasses of spatial object in GeoSPARQL means, I think,
>>> >> that SpatialObject really can’t mean anything except a step of
>>> removal
>>> >> from owl:Thing.
>>> >>
>>> >> Josh
>>> >>
>>> >>> On May 31, 2016, at 9:11 PM, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au
>>> >>> <mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> it all depends what you mean :-)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I though a GM_object was specifically a geometry. As such it is
>>> >>> independent of any real world thing - but it can be used as a
>>> >>> property of a real world thing to define a spatial characteristic.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> as such I would say GM_Object and (real world thing) are disjoint.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> What I dont really understand is what a Spatial Object is, except it
>>> >>> seems to declare that Egenhofer and other spatial operations can be
>>> >>> supported on either GM_Object or GF_Feature.{geomproperty}. One
>>> >>> wonders if a more elegant way of declaring this was possible without
>>> >>> introducing a very strange abstract notion (and the confusion here I
>>> >>> think is the evidence for the strangeness)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> OTOH running with the geoSPARQL as-is makes sense unless its
>>> provably
>>> >>> broken in terms of the inferences it allows, so I'll just get
>>> over my
>>> >>> distaste of incompatible naming vs. intent.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Rob
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 at 09:58 Joshua Lieberman
>>> >>> <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com <mailto:jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I’m questioning whether that is a good idea.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> On May 31, 2016, at 7:43 PM, simon.cox@csiro.au
>>> >>>> <mailto:simon.cox@csiro.au> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> In GeoSPARQL SpatialObject is superclass of geometry and spatial
>>> >>>> feature.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> >>>> From: Joshua Lieberman [mailto:jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com]
>>> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, 1 June 2016 9:39 AM
>>> >>>> To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au
>>> >>>> <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>>
>>> >>>> Cc: andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu
>>> >>>> <mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>;
>>> >>>> l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl <mailto:l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>;
>>> >>>> frans.knibbe@geodan.nl <mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>;
>>> >>>> public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
>>> >>>> Subject: Re: Agenda for Best Practice sub-group, 14:00UTC
>>> >>>> 1-June-2016
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Can't SpatialObject be disjoint from GF_Feature? Maybe it's
>>> >>>> really SpatialRepresentation. Unless we want to call it
>>> >>>> TransfinitePointSet.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> On May 31, 2016, at 6:20 PM, simon.cox@csiro.au
>>> >>>>> <mailto:simon.cox@csiro.au> wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> That preserves the 'thing is not a subclass of geometry' axiom,
>>> >>>>> but misses 'geometry is not a subclass of real-world-thing'.
>>> >>>>> I don't see how to do that without a subclass of owl:Thing
>>> >>>>> which is disjoint from GM_Object.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Simon J D Cox
>>> >>>>> Research Scientist
>>> >>>>> Land and Water
>>> >>>>> CSIRO
>>> >>>>> E simon.cox@csiro.au <mailto:simon.cox@csiro.au> T +61 3 9545
>>> >>>>> 2365 M +61 403 302 672
>>> >>>>> Physical: Reception Central, Bayview Avenue, Clayton, Vic 3168
>>> >>>>> Deliveries: Gate 3, Normanby Road, Clayton, Vic 3168
>>> >>>>> Postal: Private Bag 10, Clayton South, Vic 3169
>>> >>>>> people.csiro.au/C/S/Simon-Cox
>>> >>>>> <http://people.csiro.au/C/S/Simon-Cox>
>>> >>>>> orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420
>>> >>>>> <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420>
>>> >>>>> researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3
>>> >>>>> <http://researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> ________________________________________
>>> >>>>> From: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com
>>> >>>>> <mailto:jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>>
>>> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, 1 June 2016 7:12 AM
>>> >>>>> To: Andrea Perego
>>> >>>>> Cc: Linda van den Brink; Frans Knibbe; SDW WG
>>> >>>>> (public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>)
>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: Agenda for Best Practice sub-group, 14:00UTC
>>> >>>>> 1-June-2016
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> On May 31, 2016, at 10:01 AM, Andrea Perego
>>> >>>>>> <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu
>>> >>>>>> <mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Dear Linda, dear Frans, dear Josh,
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> About the agenda item on "spatial ontology", I wonder whether
>>> >>>>>> we can include here a clarification on the notions of spatial
>>> >>>>>> object, feature and geometry in GeoSPARQL - in relation to
>>> >>>>>> ISO, and to our discussion on real-world / spatial things.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> In particular:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> 1. In GeoSPARQL, feature and geometry are explicitly mapped to
>>> >>>>>> the corresponding notions in the relevant ISO standards.
>>> >>>>>> However, the definition of spatial object in GeoSPARQL doesn't
>>> >>>>>> seem to match to the ISO one ("object used for representing a
>>> >>>>>> spatial characteristic of a feature" - ISO 19107).
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Yes, it's questionable whether GF_Feature should be considered
>>> >>>>> a "Spatial Object". In ISO 19109, it's a real-world target of
>>> >>>>> discourse, that can have properties, including one or more
>>> >>>>> geometric model representations. I'm tending towards making
>>> >>>>> GF_Feature an owl:Thing, and leaving GM_Object as a SpatialObject.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> 2. What in GeoSPARQL corresponds to real-world / spatial things?
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Thanks
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Andrea
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> On 30/05/2016 10:22, Linda van den Brink wrote:
>>> >>>>>>> Hi all,
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> The Best Practice sub-group telecon agenda is at
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:BP-Telecon20160601.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Main agenda:
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> * Progress of BP Narrative 2
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> * Spatial ontology
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> See you all on Wednesday! (else please advise any regrets).
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Linda
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> --
>>> >>>>>> Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
>>> >>>>>> Scientific / Technical Project Officer European Commission DG JRC
>>> >>>>>> Institute for Environment & Sustainability Unit H06 - Digital
>>> >>>>>> Earth &
>>> >>>>>> Reference Data Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
>>> >>>>>> 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> <SpatialObject.png><SpatialObject.png>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
>>> Scientific / Technical Project Officer
>>> European Commission DG JRC
>>> Institute for Environment & Sustainability
>>> Unit H06 - Digital Earth & Reference Data
>>> Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
>>> 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
>>>
>>> https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
>

-- 
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific / Technical Project Officer
European Commission DG JRC
Institute for Environment & Sustainability
Unit H06 - Digital Earth & Reference Data
Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
21027 Ispra VA, Italy

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2016 09:57:15 UTC