Re: State of the Art

Dear colleagues,

Thanks for pointing out the new Geospatial Semantic Web CG, and for
sharing your position.

We have contacted Krzysztof on this, and we are waiting for his reply.

We would like to propose an inter-CG conversation on the scopes of the
two CGs and on possible overlaps, in order to verify whether they can
be really merged. If we decide to keep the two CGs separate, we still
believe that a close coordination between the two CGs would be
desirable, in order to avoid duplicate work and/or conflicting
solutions.

For the time being, our understanding is that the LOCADD CG has a
narrower / more specific approach, namely to review the existing
efforts to standardise vocabularies for describing locations and
addresses (e.g. GeoSPARQL, NeoGeo, the ISA Location Core Vocabulary,
schema.org's vocabulary, ...) and to assess whether any use cases
would be served by harmonisation and/or new standardisation work. This
is to say that we don't see the LOCADD CG as focussed on geospatial
semantics in general.

Referring to the discussion thread started by Chris, we totally agree
it's about time to establish relationships between the geospatial
community and other sectors using spatial data. From our side, this is
actually one of the issues we and our colleagues are facing in the
activities we are involved in concerning Gov (Linked) Open Data, where
the lack of an interoperable way of representing the same things
(e.g., the spatial & temporal coverage of a dataset) prevents the
discovery and aggregation of data from different gov sectors. As
Raphaël said, the LOCADD and GEOSEMWEB CGs can help facilitate the
cross-sector re-use and interoperability of spatial data - e.g., in
the broad framework of gov data. At least, we think the LOCADD
approach is going in this direction.

Thanks!

Andrea and Michael


On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com> wrote:
> +1 on mergers.
>
> Yes
>
> "But, at the risk of trivializing, what I actually find even stranger is
> that at the core, geo is really about two numbers (lat,long) or 3 if you
> want to add altitude (and yes, even a polygon is just a container of
> coordinates)- its not really semantic. Yet we see a lot of effort going into
> this nowadays."
>
> I'm pretty sure we've had this "conversation" before ... I won, don't you
> remember ? :-) ... for anything less than a day you need a Time Zone too or
> plain old differential equations will knock you out of sync - they are not
> semantics either.  Sometimes you have to go to great lengths to satisfy
> volatility addicts and short attention spans ...
>
> http://www.rustprivacy.org/2012/roadmap/oxford-university-area-map.pdf
>
> --Gannon
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Chris Beer <chris@codex.net.au>
>
>



--
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
European Commission DG JRC
Institute for Environment & Sustainability
Unit H06 - Digital Earth & Reference Data
Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
21027 Ispra VA, Italy

DE+RD Unit: http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/DE

----
The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
position of the European Commission.

Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2013 18:28:00 UTC