- From: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 12:30:41 +0100
- To: Kostis Kyzirakos <Kostis.Kyzirakos@cwi.nl>, Frans Knibbe | Geodan <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
- CC: LocAdd W3C CG Public Mailing list <public-locadd@w3.org>
Dear Kostis, > True, if you only have the literal, e.g. "POLYGON((97372 > 487152,97372 580407,149636 580407,149636 487152,97372 487152))", you > can not get the CRS. But is that a problem? If you have the triple > you can get the CRS (provided one is specified). > > You cannot rely on two triples to interpret a single RDF term. See my > comment on the formal definition of a datatype. On the other hand, since > we adopt the open world assumption we certainly cannot assume that only > a single pair of coordinates and CRS will exist in a knowledge base. This really comes back to the class vs datatype representation issue that has already been pointed out by Frans. In your view, if I understand well, you want the geometry value to be of a (complex) datatype, therefore, putting the CRS information *and* the coordinates into a literal that needs to be (correctly) parsed to be used. This has some limitations as we already shown in other threads, e.g. 1/ use of regular expression for some SPARQL queries, 2/ hard-coded interpretation of the value if no CRS is provided, i.e. your software relies on a default CRS, but this default is not made explicit in the vocabulary definition, etc. In Frans view (and also mine), a geometry can be a class, that has explicit attributes such as a list of coordinates and a CRS. The CRS and the set of coordinates are still tied together in the definition of this class. Do you see the difference? > Well, I do not agree with you in this. We will definitely have multiple > CRS and there is a good reason for this. Each CRS consider a different > approximation of the earth. For example, WGS84 consider the earth to be > spheroidal, which is perfect in some cases and absolute disaster for > others. It may sound a bit funny at first, but there is also the need in > some cases to model extraterrestrial coordinates :) +1 for this! We definitively need multiple CRS depending on the use case. WGS84 is fine for many use cases, but a disaster when you need precision. 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 11:31:11 UTC