Re: The spatial ontology on WebProtégé

There doesn’t seem to be a way to do re-factoring in WebProtege, which is what is involved, so working directly from GeoSPARQL 1.0 isn’t very practical. 

Josh

> On Jun 23, 2016, at 4:56 AM, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
> 
> Hi Josh,
> 
> If the plan is to further develop GeoSPARQL, wouldn't it make sense to load the current GeoSPARQL vocabularies in WebProtégé  and use that as a baseline? 
> 
> Regards,
> Frans
> 
> 2016-06-22 17:41 GMT+02:00 Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com <mailto:jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>>:
> Frans,
> 
> The ontology is still not very extensively documented, but I’m working on that.
> 
> Josh
> 
>> On Jun 22, 2016, at 11:34 AM, Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com <mailto:jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Probably both. I haven’t really figured out how to do re-factoring on Web Protege, so I’ve just replaced the existing owl file with a new one.
>> 
>> Josh
>> 
>>> On Jun 22, 2016, at 11:26 AM, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl <mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello Josh,
>>> 
>>> I have added a reference to the draft ontology you shared on WebProtégé <http://webprotege.stanford.edu/#Edit:projectId=fa09f9df-1078-4c17-a16c-ae83695ff431> on the wiki page about further development of GeoSPARQL <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Further_development_of_GeoSPARQL>.
>>> 
>>> I would like to comment on the ontology, but before I do perhaps it is good to decide how to comment. Comments could be posted to our e-mail list, but could also be added to the WebProtégé project. Do you favour either method? Or both methods?
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Frans
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
>