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
>>
>