- From: Ghislain Atemezing <auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:11:45 +0100
- To: Feroz Farazi <farazi@disi.unitn.it>
- CC: 'LocAdd W3C CG Public Mailing list' <public-locadd@w3.org>, Enzo Maltese <maltese@dit.unitn.it>, atemezin <Auguste.Atemezing@eurecom.fr>
Hi Feroz, Thanks for the pointer.. I guess we should agree about what to put in the use-cases section. And as Phil stated last time, we have already an urgent one linking with the ORG ontology. > In [1] particularly in section > 4.2 we described that conversion of the PAT (Autonomous Province of > Trento) geographic dataset into RDF necessitates the use of the > vocabularies that provide terms such as point, polyline, polygon for > encoding drinking water fountains, bicycle tracks and streams, > respectively. Re our paper, it is a real case of converting data from PAT. But here again, one could as the following: - why did you choose geontology:polyline instead of sf:MultiSurface [1] combine with some serializations from geosparql onto of OGC [2] ? - Or event one could ask why didn't you provide any serialization of the data ? - or why did you choose WGS84 datum for your data? I guess answering such questions could help us define real cases, including the cases where providers need to encode their data in other SRID. Please correct me if I am wrong. Best, Ghislain PS: Btw, an access to your ontology (http://www.territorio.provincia.tn.it/geodati/ontology/) returns me a 404 answer...I would be glad to add it in LOV dataset :-) [1] http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/details/vocabulary_sf.html [2] http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/details/vocabulary_gsp.html -- Ghislain Atemezing EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department Campus SophiaTech 450, route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France. e-mail: auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr & ghislain.atemezing@gmail.com Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8178 Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~atemezin
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2013 10:12:14 UTC