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

Hi, Frans.

Comments inline.

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Frans Knibbe | Geodan <
frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:

[snip]

 It could very well  be that I am overlooking something. But let me try to
> explain my thinking:  The original suggestion was to model centroid, MBR,
> etc. as subproperties of locn:geometry. But the range of locn:geometry is
> locn:Geometry. So I think you can't say something like:
>
> ex:London
>     a locn:Location;
>     locn:centroid ex:aCentroid;
>     locn:mbr ex:aMbr;
>     locn:geometry ex:goemetry1;
>     locn:geometry ex:geometry2;
>     locn:geometry ex:geometry3.
>

Sorry, Frans, probably I'm missing something here. Do you mean that MBRs,
centroids, etc. cannot be considered as types of geometries?


> This is assuming that locn:Location is more or less the same as a spatial
> feature, which is something I only began to realize very recently :-)
>

Actually, this was the original idea of the ISA CLV TF. The possibility of
including specific classes for spatial objects and features was discussed,
but they were opt out due to the intended cross-sector use of the
vocabulary. The point made was that such two notions were not supposed to
be used outside the geospatial area. So, their possible inclusion was
considered more in the scope of a specialised extension to the LOCN voc.

Coming back to the issue under discussion, I personally share John's and
Sven's position.

In order to verify the current position of the group, could you please five
your vote to the following proposal:

1. Definition of sub-properties of locn:geometry to denote MBRs, centroids,
etc.

2. They can be used to specify the MBR, centroid, etc. of a dcterms:Location

3. They can be used to specify the MDR, centroid, etc. of a geometry

Thanks!

Andrea