- From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:25:54 +0000
- To: danbri@danbri.org, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
- CC: Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@oucs.ox.ac.uk>
Hi Dan (or anyone),
I've a question about the geo vocabulary (http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/) that
you still seem to be shepherding (well, as recently as 2 years ago, it seems :)
Is there a common vocabulary term that can be used to attach a geo:Point to an
object, e.g. to say that some place includes a given point. We're looking to
combine the geo: vocabulary with CIDOC-CRM [4], which has its own concept for a
coordinate entity that is distinct from geo:Point, but for which geo:Point would
be a reasonable qualifier.
[[
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<E53.Place xmlns="http://purl.org/NET/crm-owl#"
rdf:about="http://clas-lgpn2.classics.ox.ac.uk/placeid/LGPN_12790">
<P87.is_identified_by>
<E47.Place_Spatial_Coordinates>
<what-property-goes-here???>
<geo:Point xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#">
<geo:lat>25.49395234082177</geo:lat>
<geo:long>37.05405819595916</geo:long>
</geo:Point>
</what-property-goes-here???>
</E47.Place_Spatial_Coordinates>
</P87.is_identified_by>
</E53.Place>
</rdf:RDF>
]]
You give an example <based_near> from FOAF, but that seems not very generic. It
doesn't feel like a good idea if every vocabulary that employs geo: terms has to
also invent its own terms to link to them.
My suggestion: <geo:has_point> indicating that the place or region that is the
domain of this property contains the <geo:Point> location that is the range of
the property.
I did think of treating CRM's <E47.Place_Spatial_Coordinates> [2] as a
superclass of <geo:Point>, but I worry that creates an relationship between CRM
and geo entities that may not always be true (as in "Hey, You Kids, Get Off My
Lawn!" [3]?).
There still a bit of an issue lurking here as the CRM entity is not itself a
place, but a form of place identifier (as can be seen by browsing up the class
hierarchy from [2]), so maybe my thought about <geo:has_point> would still miss
the point (pun accidental).
So: did you have any thoughts about the ways in which geo:Points relate to other
entities?
#g
--
[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/
[2]
http://www8.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/IMMD8/Services/cidoc-crm/docu/081216/classes/E47.Spatial_Coordinates.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Sep/0162.html
[4] http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/,
http://www8.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/IMMD8/Services/cidoc-crm/documentation.html
--
Graham Klyne
Image Bioinformatics Research Group
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford
South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK
E-mail: <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Direct phone: +44-(0)1865-281991
Departmental fax: +44-(0)1865-310447
Web: http://ibrg.zoo.ox.ac.uk/
http://antiparos.zoo.ox.ac.uk/
http://imageweb.zoo.ox.ac.uk/
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 17:47:43 UTC