- From: Sven Schade <sven.schade@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:28:30 +0100
- To: "'Raphaël Troncy'" <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>, "'Frans Knibbe | Geodan'" <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, public-locadd@w3.org
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. > 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). I fully agree on the need for representing such relations, but isn't that what the "locadd:Location" class is used for? Sven
Received on Friday, 17 January 2014 17:29:12 UTC