RE: Property "geographic identifier" in LOCN

"Here we are extending QUDT" 
- I meant "at CSIRO we are extending QUDT"

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon.Cox@csiro.au [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au] 
Sent: Thursday, 9 January 2014 5:49 PM
To: janowicz@ucsb.edu; public-locadd@w3.org
Subject: [ExternalEmail] RE: Property "geographic identifier" in LOCN

> other vocabularies/ontologies should be aligned but not reused in the sense of a fixed integration.

Taken literally that looks like a very strong constraint. 
Most of us (re-)use elements from DC, DCT, SKOS, VOID, FOAF, VOAF, PROV-O, etc. 
Here we are extending QUDT for an observable-properties ontology. 
The ISO/TC 211 ontologies are built on the assumption of re-use of common elements in more complex ontologies. 

I thought the point of LOCN was to provide some standard elements that could be re-used in many contexts. 
Where do you draw the line?

Else I guess I'm misunderstanding the statement. 

Simon

-----Original Message-----
From: Krzysztof Janowicz [mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu]
Sent: Thursday, 9 January 2014 5:03 PM
To: public-locadd@w3.org
Subject: Re: Property "geographic identifier" in LOCN

>> About how to model GNIS IDs and other geographical identifiers, as I 
>> said in [1], a possible option would be to re-use adms:Identifier [2].

IMHO, other vocabularies/ontologies should be aligned but not reused in the sense of a fixed integration.

Cheers,
Krzysztof

On 01/08/2014 04:16 PM, Andrea Perego wrote:
> I'm also in favour of your proposal, Raphaël - i.e., keep using 
> rdfs:seeAlso. And many thanks, Kostis, for providing a strong use case 
> for this property, besides the INSPIRE one explained in my previous 
> email [1] (again, apologies for being late in replying).
>
> About how to model GNIS IDs and other geographical identifiers, as I 
> said in [1], a possible option would be to re-use adms:Identifier [2].
> An alternative, is to create a specific, core class for this in the 
> LOCN vocabulary, that can be extended depending on the requirements of 
> different identifier schemes.
>
> Andrea
>
> ----
> [1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-locadd/2014Jan/0076.html

> [2]http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-adms/#identifier

>
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Raphaël Troncy 
> <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr <mailto:raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>> wrote:
>
>         So we can similarly say for locn, as you suggested something like:
>
>         locn:identifier a owl:DatatypeProperty, rdf:Property ;
>         rdfs:range [a rdfs:Datatype ;
>                          owl:unionOf (xsd:URI rdfs:Literal) .]  ;
>         Does it make sense?
>
>
>     No. If you want that this URI to be interpreted as a URI and not as
>     a literal, then the identifier property cannot be a
>     owl:DatatypeProperty. It is an owl:ObjectProperty by definition.
>     Since we want an unconstrained range, we are out of OWL anyway, so
>     the property will just be a rdf:Property.
>
>
>         And add to the appropriate class in locn vocab an axiom like the
>         one stated in org like:
>         locn:aClass owl:hasKey (locn:identifier) ;
>
>
>     * What would be the owl class: locn:Location? locn:Geometry?
>     Something else?
>     * Why would you like to make this property a key? This prevents to
>     have two geographic identifiers for the same object which sorts of
>     ruins the interoperability effort we are trying to achieve with this
>     property.
>     I'm afraid I don't understand your proposal.
>
>
>        Raphaël
>
>     --
>     Raphaël Troncy
>     EURECOM, Campus SophiaTech
>     Multimedia Communications Department
>     450 route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France.
>     e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr <mailto:raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
>     & raphael.troncy@gmail.com <mailto:raphael.troncy@gmail.com>
>     Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242 <tel:%2B33%20%280%294%20-%209300%208242>
>     Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 <tel:%2B33%20%280%294%20-%209000%208200>
>     Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/

>
>
>
>
> --
> Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
> European Commission DG JRC
> Institute for Environment & Sustainability Unit H06 - Digital Earth & 
> Reference Data Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
> 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
>
> DE+RD Unit: http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/DE

>
> ----
> The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any 
> circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the 
> European Commission.


--
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 Thursday, 9 January 2014 06:51:37 UTC