Re: A proposal for two additional properties for LOCN

Hi Frans,

I would prefer locn:crs, clearly.
And good to leave the domain unspecified, as it has been also suggested by
others in the list.

Oscar

-- 

Oscar Corcho
Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
Facultad de Informática
Campus de Montegancedo s/n
Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, España
Tel. (+34) 91 336 66 05
Fax  (+34) 91 352 48 19

De:  Frans Knibbe | Geodan <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
Fecha:  jueves, 4 de septiembre de 2014 12:48
Para:  "Oscar Corcho (UPM)" <ocorcho@fi.upm.es>, LocAdd W3C CG Public
Mailing list <public-locadd@w3.org>
Asunto:  Re: A proposal for two additional properties for LOCN

    
 
Hello Oscar, 
 
 Thank you for you comments! Let me reflect on them in bullet points:
 
* crs or coordinateReferenceSystem? The difference is clear. The first is
easier to spell, so there is less risk of typos. The latter is better at
conveying the meaning of the term, but that is not really necessary because
other elements serve that purpose.  This issue just made me wonder whether
there are any naming conventions for RDF vocabularies. I did find some, but
no recommendations on the usage of abbreviations or acronyms. If we make it
locn:crs, shouldn't it be locn:cRS if camel casing is applied rigorously?
* The reason for wanting to associate a CRS with a dataset is that it allows
selecting datasets from a collection of datasets (a catalog, or the entire
web) based on that criterion. For instance, when geographical data are
plotted  in a map, the map has a certain CRS. It makes sense to limit
dataset selection to matching CRSes. Also, such a property could be assigned
to collections of geometries to relieve a data publisher from having to
repeat the CRS for each and every geometry (although I would be doubtful
about such a practice, because the CRS it rather vital for interpretation of
the coordinates).
*  That being said, I do think there is a lot of merit to leaving the domain
unspecified. My idea was to make it clear that the property could or should
be used in dataset metadata too. But perhaps just explaining that in the
comment is sufficient. I also wondered if there could not be other
collections of geometries next to datasets that one would want to associate
a CRS with, now or in the future. That consideration also means the domain
is best left unspecified.
 

Regards,
 Frans
 
 
 On 2014-09-02 20:34, Oscar Corcho wrote:
 
 
>  
>  
> Dear Frans,
>  
> 
>  
>  
> For the use cases that I have in mind, the first one covers well the needs
> that I had. I would probably use a shorter qName, such as locn:crs, which
> should be in general well understood.
>  
> 
>  
>  
> With respect to the domain, I cannot understand well why you want to
> associated it to a Dataset, and I would probably leave it associated to
> locn:Geometry, or even leave the domain unspecified.
>  
> 
>  
>  
> As for using xsd:anyURI, I am happy with it (I would probably prefer having a
> class CRS with instances for it, as I think that was suggested by Ghislain
> Atemezing some time ago, but having the anyURI datatype seems sufficient to me
> at this point.
>  
> 
>  
>  
> Oscar
>  
> 
>  
>  
>  
> -- 
>  
> 
>  
>  
>  
> 
> Oscar Corcho
>  
> Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
>  
> Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
>  
> Facultad de Informática
>  
> Campus de Montegancedo s/n
>  
> Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, España
>  
> Tel. (+34) 91 336 66 05
>  
> Fax  (+34) 91 352 48 19
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
>  
>   
> De:  Frans Knibbe | Geodan <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
>  Fecha:  lunes, 1 de septiembre de 2014 14:49
>  Para:  LocAdd W3C CG Public Mailing list <public-locadd@w3.org>
>  Asunto:  A proposal for two additional properties for LOCN
>  Nuevo envío de:  <public-locadd@w3.org>
>  Fecha de nuevo envío:  Mon, 01 Sep 2014 12:50:48 +0000
>  
>  
> 
>  
>  
>   
>  Hello all,
>  
>  I have made a wiki page for a provisional proposal  for the addition of two
> new properties to the Location Core Vocabulary
> <https://www.w3.org/community/locadd/wiki/Proposal_for_extension_of_LOCN_with_
> properties_for_Coordinate_Reference_System_and_Level_of_Detail> : CRS and
> spatial resolution. I would welcome your thoughts and comments.
>  
>  The proposal is based on earlier discussions on this list. I am not certain
> about any of it, but I think starting with certain definitions can help in
> eventually getting something that is good to work with.
>  
>  Some questions that I can come up with are:
>  
> 1. Are the semantics of the two properties really absent from the semantic web
> at the moment? 
> 2. Is the Location Core Vocabulary an appropriate place to add them?
> 3. Is the proposed way of modelling the two properties right? Could conflicts
> with certain use cases occur?
>  
> 
> More detailed questions are on the wiki page.
>  
>  
> 
> Regards,
>  Frans
>  
>  
> 
> 
>  
>  
>  
> 
>  Frans Knibbe
>  Geodan
>  President Kennedylaan 1
>  1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)
>  
>  T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
>  E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
>  www.geodan.nl <http://www.geodan.nl>  | disclaimer
> <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>
>  
> 
>  
>  
>   
 
 
 
 

 Frans Knibbe
 Geodan
 President Kennedylaan 1
 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)
 
 T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
 E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
 www.geodan.nl <http://www.geodan.nl>  | disclaimer
<http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>