Re: Sub-properties for locn:geometry?

Hello,

>> 1)What would be a use case for which we would need a feature (or
>> similar) class?

This class often exists, because even in the minimal case, you tend to 
attach geo-coordinates to something, see below. So it makes sense to 
have it in the locn vocabulary, either by re-using an existing class or 
by creating a new class.

> Because the extra class ties things that already exist in the vocabulary
> together. And because the ISO TC211 community has a different scope. It
> is not Linked Data, and the ISO 191xx standards are not that simple and
> adoptable.
>
> It is interesting to see that vocabularies like GeoSPARQL and NeoGeo
> also saw a need to have a 'Feature' entity.

Exactly. Geonames has of course a "Feature" class. Similarly, the 
equivalent in schema.org is I suppose the "Place" class [1] that can be 
specialized in an AdministrativeArea, a Landmark, a TouristAttraction, a 
LocalBusiness, a Residence, etc. Furthermore, schema.org has the notion 
of StructuredValue such as GeoCoordinates [2] and GeoShape [3] (box, 
circle, polygon, line).

   Raphaël

[1] http://schema.org/Place
[2] http://schema.org/GeoCoordinates
[3] http://schema.org/GeoShape

-- 
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, 14 January 2014 14:33:55 UTC