- From: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 12:16:04 +0100
- To: Kostis Kyzirakos <Kostis.Kyzirakos@cwi.nl>
- CC: Frans Knibbe | Geodan <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, LocAdd W3C CG Public Mailing list <public-locadd@w3.org>
Dear Kostis, > 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 are converging :-) So, it seems we agree on the fact that the vocab should recommend a property to represent a GNIS id (or another legacy identifier) of a geographic object. The range of this property should also be unconstrained (i.e. the value can be a URI or a literal). Options are: - minting a new property in the locn vocabulary for this purpose - re-using an existing property. rdf:seeAlso (http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_seealso) has an unconstrained range ... therefore, what would be wrong in using this property for this purpose? locn would probably want to add a (recommendation) note explaining what the seeAlso means in the locn context (i.e. bridge to legacy GNIS or other identifiers), which brings us back to the question on how this should be done in the vocabulary specification. We are indeed here lacking some good practices recommendation (see also the email from Andrea, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-locadd/2014Jan/0037.html). 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 Tuesday, 7 January 2014 11:16:33 UTC