- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:50:01 -0400
- To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I've closed this issue, after adding: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/PROV-FAQ#Isn.27t_prov:Location_just_wgs:SpatialThing.3F I'm not sure I have a good answer for why we didn't reuse wgs:SpatialThing. :-/ Does anyone have any suggestions? "Anything with spatial extent, i.e. size, shape, or position. e.g. people, places, bowling balls, as well as abstract areas like cubes." "A location can be an identifiable geographic place (ISO 19112), but it can also be a non-geographic place such as a directory, row, or column." As a semantic web person, it's hard for me to argue against reusing existing classes that have so much similarity. To be honest, it think it was mostly a practical issue, since it caused more complication for the WG to complete the PROV-O design. But, I doubt that's something that we want to admit :-) Regards, Tim On Mar 5, 2012, at 9:36 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: > PROV-ISSUE-296 (TLebo): prov:Location rdfs:subClassOf wgs:SpatialThing ? [mapping prov-dm <-> prov-o] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/296 > > Raised by: Timothy Lebo > On product: mapping prov-dm <-> prov-o > > http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#SpatialThing is > > "Anything with spatial extent, i.e. size, shape, or position. > e.g. people, places, bowling balls, as well as abstract areas like cubes." > > -Tim > > > >
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2013 12:50:23 UTC