Re: Property "geographic identifier" in LOCN

Hello Kostis,

> The GNIS identifier is an (up to) ten digit number. However, there are
> many other forms
> of identifiers (e.g., guid are used in many datasets that I have seen),
> so I think that the
> safest choice would be to have a URI so that we could say a few thinks
> about it afterwards,
> e.g., by using different (small) vocabularies for each standard.

But if the GNIS is just a 10 digits number, you need to mint a URI for 
this number and you need a URI policy for this. It seems to me that a 
GNIS may be a literal or may be a URI. Therefore, I would rather suggest 
to use a property that has no constraint on its range and could accept 
both (like many dce properties).

> We could follow the current practice and use the owl:sameAs for this
> reason, but I think it is problematic in this case.

owl:sameAs can work only if we have two URIs since a literal cannot be 
the subject of a statement. However, I just show above that without a 
URI policy and someone responsible to mint URI for GNIS, we might only 
have literals to manage. Therefore, owl:sameAs is not appropriate for 
those cases. I believe you're arguing for having a specific geographic 
identifier property for which the range would be loose (URI or literal).

> What do you mean when you say that the rdfs:seeAlso is
> hijacked?

I meant that the ns namespace should not try to redefine a property 
defined in another ns (in this case, the rdfs ns). At best, it should 
provide guidance of how this re-used property should be interpreted in 
the context of the locn vocabulary.
Best regards.

   Raphaël

-- 
Raphaël Troncy
EURECOM, Campus SophiaTech
Multimedia Communications Department
450 route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France.
e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/

Received on Monday, 6 January 2014 16:19:04 UTC