- From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:25:59 -0800
- To: <public-locadd@w3.org>
Hi, > All URI's should be defined as anonymously owned currency, I think. Linked Data will work better. It is not clear to me what you are trying to say. Can you explain this in more detail? Cheers, Krzysztof On 01/06/2014 03:18 PM, Gannon Dick wrote: > 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 > > > > > -- Krzysztof Janowicz Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara 5806 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060 Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/ Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
Received on Monday, 6 January 2014 23:26:31 UTC