- From: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 23:05:42 +0200
- To: martin <martin@ics.forth.gr>
- Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Martin / Carl How much consensus/community adoption do you see around OGC's definitions of location. If we were to link directly to those definitions would we be covered? Would such an approach constrain us? How does this interact with the w3c geo working group? Thanks Paul Sent from my iPhone On May 23, 2011, at 22:09, martin <martin@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > On 5/20/2011 10:06 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> >> PROV-ISSUE-6 (define-location): Definition for Concept 'Location' [Provenance Terminology] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/6 >> >> Raised by: Luc Moreau >> On product: Provenance Terminology >> >> The Provenance WG charter identifies the concept 'Location' as a core concept of the provenance interchange language to be standardized (see http://www.w3.org/2011/01/prov-wg-charter). >> >> What term do we adopt for the concept 'Location'? >> How do we define the concept 'Location'? >> Where does concept 'Location' appear in ProvenanceExample? >> Which provenance query requires the concept 'Location'? >> >> Wiki page: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptLocation >> > ISO21127 defines as location: > > E53 Place > > "This class comprises extents in space, in particular on the surface of the earth, in the pure sense of physics: independent from temporal phenomena and matter. > > The instances of E53 Place are usually determined by reference to the position of “immobile” objects such as buildings, cities, mountains, rivers, or dedicated geodetic marks. A Place can be determined by combining a frame of reference and a location with respect to this frame. It may be identified by one or more instances of E44 Place Appellation. > > It is sometimes argued that instances of E53 Place are best identified by global coordinates or absolute reference systems. However, relative references are often more relevant in the context of cultural documentation and tend to be more precise. In particular, we are often interested in position in relation to large, mobile objects, such as ships. For example, the Place at which Nelson died is known with reference to a large mobile object – H.M.S Victory. A resolution of this Place in terms of absolute coordinates would require knowledge of the movements of the vessel and the precise time of death, either of which may be revised, and the result would lack historical and cultural relevance. > > Any object can serve as a frame of reference for E53 Place determination. The model foresees the notion of a "section" of an E19 Physical Object as a valid E53 Place determination." > > The notion of "section" appears as "segment", or "portion" in other sources. This definition was inspired by OPENGIS. I suggest either to adopt a shorter version of the above, or refer to an OGC definition, which is probably the most competent resource. > > Martin > > > > > -- > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 | > Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 | > | Email: martin@ics.forth.gr | > | > Center for Cultural Informatics | > Information Systems Laboratory | > Institute of Computer Science | > Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) | > | > Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece | > | > Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl | > -------------------------------------------------------------- > >
Received on Monday, 23 May 2011 21:06:12 UTC