RE: Sub-properties for locn:geometry? (was: RE: ISA Core Location Vocabulary)

> Absolutely. So we should agree if we need such an additional element, which would make the overall vocabulary more complex, i.e. less simple and adoptable.

 

> We might try to answer the following three (subsequent) questions:

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

>> If that class exists, we can attach properties to it. Properties that already exist in the vocabulary, like geometry, address or name. From a consumers' perspective: If a thing is designated as being a spatial thing, one can expect that it might have certain characteristics, like an address, a geographical name,  a geometry. That is useful.

>> Regarding the new properties proposed by John: Let's assume a spatial feature like a city. It could have tens of different geometries. I think that in most cases a user agent will be interested in the centroid or MBR of the city (the feature), not of all the different geometries. Although I can also imagine that a user agent does want to get the centroid or MBR of a particular geometry. So I think the new properties could be properties of both spatial features and geometries. 

Following John’s suggestion the “Location” class would basically gain all the capabilities that you are requesting above, i.e. back to question (2) I am missing a central point here?

 

  > 2) Why could this use case not be realized with the more light-weight model that was initially suggested by John?