Re: Ontology for geometric data?

Josh Lieberman was doing some theoretical work on such an ontology during
SDWWG - but it didnt reach fruition.

I do believe its worth looking at QB4ST for (some motivating) Use Cases -
in particular:
1) Data "dimensions" (in the OLAP sense) using nested spatial features -
e.g. statistical and jurisdictional cases
2) Data dimensions using field-of-view-sensors - gridded data
3) Data dimensions for numerical model outputs
4) Geometry as an observed property (multi-valued with metadata)
5) the general case of an ontology needing to reference general spatial
concepts.


Rob


On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 22:20, Pieter Pauwels <pipauwel.Pauwels@ugent.be>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
> Yes, geometry is out of scope for a Building community group. Yet, we do
> have a lot of complex 3D geometries in our areas that we would want to
> describe (often going way beyond what is in the geospatial domain). I can
> imagine that there is a lot of requirement for complex 3D geometry also in
> other areas, such as product development areas (cars, planes, chairs, ...).
> Many of these more complex 3D geometries rely on STEP, I think.
>
>
> I think it would be of value to conceive a group that works on diverse
> geometric data models over the web (plenty of kinds), outside of the
> existing groups.
>
>
> The GEOM ontology that was mentioned in the TPAC is a derivative from the
> STEP geometry model within the Industry Foundation Classes (a file-based
> standard in buildingSMART). It is just one of the possible examples. The
> presentation also refers to the use of Well-Known Text and .obj-based
> strings.
>
>
> kind regards,
>
> Pieter
>
>
> --
> prof. dr. ir.-arch. Pieter Pauwels
> Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Ghent University, Belgium
> ------------------------------
> *Van:* Frans Knibbe <frans..knibbe@geodan.nl>
> *Verzonden:* vrijdag 26 oktober 2018 13:11
> *Aan:* maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr
> *CC:* public-lbd@w3.org; public-sdwig@w3.org
> *Onderwerp:* Re: Ontology for geometric data?
>
> Hi Maxime,
>
> Threads are getting entangled now, I see. Earlier I posted this message
> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdwig/2018Oct/0090.html> on
> the SDWIG public list, trying to argue that a general ontology for spatial
> data should be developed.
>
> I too believe that a geometry ontology goes beyond the scope of the LBDCG.
> But it does seem to be in scope for the SDWIG. That said, it was also in
> scope for its predecessor, the SDWWG
> <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Main_Page>, but in the end no work
> on the subject was done. That probably was due to a lack of available time
> for the group members, and because of the heavy focus on geography within
> the group. There was the idea to work on an improved version of GeoSPARQL,
> but to my knowledge that has not started yet.
>
> Perhaps it will helpful to know that the LBDCG is interested in a general
> ontology for geometry. I think other interest groups in the W3C sphere
> should also be interested in the topic, for instance those concerned with
> web graphics (2D or 3D) and the Web of Things.
>
> An aside: On slide 46 ("External ontologies for 2D & 3D geometry") of the
> TPAC presentation an ontology with the name "Geom" is mentioned. Would that
> be http://data.ign.fr/def/geometrie?
>
> Regards,
> Frans
>
>
>
>
> Op vr 26 okt. 2018 om 11:37 schreef Maxime Lefrançois <
> maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>:
>
>> Dear Frans,
>>
>> Your question to the Linked Building Data Community Group mailing list is
>> also highly relevant to the Spatial Data on the Web Interest Group, so I
>> forward your mail to their public list to get some feedback as well.
>>
>> What is currently defined in the Building Topology Ontology document (one
>> of the reports of the LBD-CG) is here:
>> https://w3c-lbd-cg.github.io/bot/#3DModel
>> As for working on a 3D geometry ontology, it was decided that this goes
>> beyond the scope of the Linked Building Data group and shall be left out
>> for some more domain-independent group to work on.
>> See also our presentation of LBD at TPAC 2018 this monday
>> https://w3c-lbd-cg.github.io/lbd/presentations/out/TPAC2018.pptx slides
>> 44-46.
>>
>> The SDW IG recently published (while it was a W3C Working Group) some
>> recommendations and notes including:
>> - Spatial Data on the Web best practices https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-bp/
>> - Semantic Sensor Network Ontology https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-ssn/
>> - OWL-Time Ontology https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/
>> You can get a quick overview of what they are currently investigating on
>> their GitHub projects webpage: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/projects
>>
>> Best,
>> Maxime
>>
>> Le ven. 26 oct. 2018 à 11:19, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have recently finished a small research project in which BIM data from
>>> an IFC file were to be combined with geographical (GIS) data. A Linked Data
>>> based approach was also investigated, So it was an example of something
>>> that should be made possible by Linked Data: combining data from different
>>> domains. A known but difficult problem arises when this is tried: the
>>> information models and data formats for geometry in BIM and GIS are
>>> fundamentally different. Even when GIS and BIM data are made available as
>>> Linked Data, their geometric data are not interoperable.
>>>
>>> So my question is: Is anyone aware of an attempt to have more general
>>> (domain independent) specifications of spatial data on the semantic web? Or
>>> is this perhaps something that this group has already set out to do?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Frans
>>>
>>