Re: SDW BP narrative location (and ISSUE 38)

Hi Rob,

I’m not sure I understand your use of “Dimension” here but look forward to hearing more. In the meantime, I’ve based the nhdhyf ontology on the sdwgeo spatial ontology and am busy translating NHDPlus into it, so we’ll see how well that works. The gap has always been tool availability, particularly for visualization, so that’s next to address. 

Cheers,

Josh

> On Jun 24, 2016, at 12:34 PM, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au> wrote:
> 
> Josh (in particular)...
> I have spent the day discussing requirements for describing data dimensions with Mark Hedly from the UK Met Office. My aim in the next week is to have a go at describing some common patterns - in particular how a dimension may support spatial, topological and feature-model related operations - such as traversing a nesting of catchments - or a nesting of irregular grids, or a codedDimension, or a time dimension. I am expecting this to need something like the spatial ontology - possibly GeoSPARQL will be adequate.  Stay tuned for some straw man hacks to discuss..
> 
> Rob
> 
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 at 01:42 Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com <mailto:jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>> wrote:
> It isn’t necessarily a problem that “something” is a feature and also something else (a data tuple, an issue, etc.). The dissonance is when there is real world and/or property overlap between two features. Integration then needs to be guided by some expression of the actual overlap and consideration of whether the two features in question actually share the same metalevel (e.g. pile of material versus conjunction of hopes and dreams).
> 
> Josh
> 
> 
>> On Jun 22, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com <mailto:jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Rob- following up discussion in the plenary call this week, the BP Narrative is here:
>> 
>> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Narrative_2 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Narrative_2>
>> 
>> You said that you'd try to identify implementation examples that fit in the 9 scenarios we've identified. 
>> 
>> I also asked you to consider whether we should care about the fact that a Feature (OGC / ISOTC211 parlance) can only be of one (and only one) Feature Type (Class) where as in the web / linked data world a resource that is a SpatialThing [1] may also be designated as other types of thing too ... e.g. does this affect our ability to reconcile two Features that appear to be talking about the same physical thing. This relates to the ISSUE 38 questions being discussed in another WG email thread [2]
>> 
>> Jeremy
>> 
>> [1]: SpatialThing: “Anything with spatial extent, i.e. size, shape, or position. e.g. people, places, bowling balls, as well as abstract areas like cubes.” [W3C Basic Geo]
>> [2]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Jun/0116.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Jun/0116.html> 
>