Re: Property "geographic identifier" in LOCN

Sorry.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_curve
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibrat%27s_law

--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 1/6/14, Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: Property "geographic identifier" in LOCN
 To: "Raphaël Troncy" <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>, "Kostis Kyzirakos" <Kostis.Kyzirakos@cwi.nl>
 Cc: "Frans Knibbe | Geodan" <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, "LocAdd W3C CG Public Mailing list" <public-locadd@w3.org>
 Date: Monday, January 6, 2014, 5:18 PM
 
 Hi Kostis,
 
 The problem with "geographic identifier" seems to be
 insuring that a URI not "out rank" another ns's URI for the
 same Feature (entity).  This would quite literally be a
 "land grab".  The web can do without more of those.
 
 Might it be worthwhile to voluntarily limit LOCN to
 equivalent  "actual" (before "now") and "virtual"
 (after "now") URI policies ?  
 
 http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#SymmetricProperty-def
 
 <owl:SymmetricProperty
 rdf:ID="geographicIdentifierOf">
   <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Place"/>
   <rdfs:range  rdf:resource="#Place"/>
 </owl:SymmetricProperty>  
 
 Specifically, what is symmetric is the Lorenz curve[1]
 because Gibrat's rule of proportionate growth[2]
 unilaterally applies across the range (the proportional
 growth of the Eiffel Tower is 1/1 not 0/0 for
 example).  I first thought this was ludicrously
 pedantic, but then I read in [2]:
 
 "In the study of the firms (business), the scholars do not
 agree that the foundation and the outcome of Gibrat's law
 are empirically correct."
 
 Sounds like the "scholars" are assuming "authority" to
 me.  All URI's should be defined as anonymously owned
 currency, I think.  Linked Data will work better. 
 
 --Gannon
 
 
 
 --------------------------------------------
 On Mon, 1/6/14, Kostis Kyzirakos <Kostis.Kyzirakos@cwi.nl>
 wrote:
 
  Subject: Re: Property "geographic identifier" in LOCN
  To: "Raphaël Troncy" <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
  Cc: "Frans Knibbe | Geodan" <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>,
 "LocAdd W3C CG Public Mailing list" <public-locadd@w3.org>
  Date: Monday, January 6, 2014, 11:45 AM
  
  Hi Raphael,
  
  
  
  
  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).
  
  
  GNIS ids are just one case of identifiers, so I
  think I agree with you in having an undefined range for
 this
  property. 
  Otherwise, we would have to introduce
  just-another-unique-identifier that would then have some
  properties linking to a GNIS id for example, but after all
  IK think it would be a bit superfluous.
  
  
   
  
  
  
  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).
  
  
  Sure. I was thinking about the scenario where a
  locn:geometry-identifier would have been introduced by the
  locn vocabulary. 
  
  Cheers,
  Kostis

Received on Monday, 6 January 2014 23:22:37 UTC