Re: A proposal for two additional properties for LOCN

Frans Knibbe | Geodan <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote on 05-09-2014 
12:50:51:


> 3. For (spatial) resolution, I think we should find a way to specify
> arbitrary units of measure - I wouldn't exclude a priori the
> possibility of encoding them as literals (e.g., 5m, 100x100px).
> If the spatial resolution is a number, some very convenient ways of 
> using it can be thought of. For example: 
> "Give me the geometry of the city of Paris with the highest spatial 
> resolution"
> "Give me all datasets about vegetation in Poland with a spatial 
> resolution between 100 and 500 meters"
> Now if the range of spatialResolution is left unspecified, wouldn't 
> that discourage this kind of usage? And wouldn't it discourage data 
> publishers to specify the spatial resolution is a useful way?
> If the spatialResolution is not a number with a specified unit 
> (meters), I am afraid that it can not be used effectively for 
> automated data processing, that it would always require a human to 
> make sense of the value.

+1 for being specific about how to use the value so automation can be 
applied!

maybe the way goodrelations handles it might give you inspiration:
http://www.heppnetz.de/ontologies/goodrelations/v1.html#QuantitativeValue


There you can specify a unit of measurement, this would allow automatic 
conversion between e.g. ft and m


Met Vriendelijke Groet / With Kind Regards
Bart van Leeuwen

##############################################################
# twitter: @semanticfire
# netage.nl
# http://netage.nl

# Enschedepad 76
# 1324 GJ Almere
# The Netherlands
# tel. +31(0)36-5347479
##############################################################


> Regards,
> Frans

> 
> 
> Andrea
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 2:22 AM,  <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:

> Ø  As for using xsd:anyURI, I am happy with it (I would probably prefer
> having a class CRS with instances for it
> 
> +1
> 
> Yes – I do not like to see anyURI as the range for anything, except for 
a
> property whose job is to assign an identifier.
> 
> If you want to defer specifying a range, then make it an 
owl:ObjectProperty
> .
> 
> 
> 
> From: Oscar Corcho [mailto:ocorcho@fi.upm.es]
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 September 2014 4:34 AM
> To: Frans Knibbe | Geodan; LocAdd W3C CG Public Mailing list
> Subject: Re: A proposal for two additional properties for LOCN
> 
> 
> 
> 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: 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:
> 
> Are the semantics of the two properties really absent from the semantic 
web
> at the moment?
> Is the Location Core Vocabulary an appropriate place to add them?
> 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 | 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 | disclaimer