Re: A proposal for two additional properties for LOCN

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Frans Knibbe | Geodan
<frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Being not even an amateur when it comes to OWL modelling, I am impressed
> that you have come up with this! And I am having a hard time grasping all
> implications of this model too. Which leads me to think that as OWL is
> harder on both human and machine reasoners, does it make sense to try to
> model this in RDFS only?

I would favour this option.

> The class locn:SpatialResolution could have two
> subclasses: locn:AngularSpatialResolution and
> locn:CartesianSpatialResolution (or they could have other names, as long as
> one is used for geographics (spherical) coordinate systems and the other for
> cartesian (projected) coordinate systems). The two specialized classes could
> have related properties (e.g. locn:angularSpatialResolution and
> locn:cartesianSpatialResolution) and have simple ranges (qudt:AngleUnit and
> qudt:LengthUnit). Although this introduces more classes, it could be a way
> of untangling a difficult matter.

I wonder whether, by using the relevant QUDT classes, we are already
implicitly stating the "resolution type". In such a case, we wouldn't
even need a locn:SpatialResolution class. If use cases exist for
explicitly specifying the "resolution type",
locn:cartesianSpatialResolution, etc. can be made sub-properties of
locn:spatialResolution.

BTW, another common way of specifying spatial resolution is by using
an equivalent scale. If I'm not mistaken, this can be expressed in
QUDT by using dimensionless quantities - in particular,
quantity:DimensionlessRatio [1].

http://www.qudt.org/qudt/owl/1.0.0/quantity/Instances.html#DimensionlessRatio

Another option is to define something like
locn:equivalentScaleSpatialResolution, with xsd:integer as range.

Andrea

Received on Monday, 29 September 2014 22:48:07 UTC