W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemaorg@w3.org > January 2018

Re: has boundry - Do we have something close ?

From: Vicki Tardif <vtardif@google.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:00:37 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOr1obGqQ-zX3y_r7rBeE2x_HndaZ46H9895WtX7x=JY4+Z9Pg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
In the examples given, one is a geographic boundary (Walls of Jerusalem)
and the other is the boundary of an anatomical structure. A single property
encompassing both ideas is the sort of mid-level ontology we have not
traditionally done.

I am not particularly against the idea, but we should be thoughtful about
heading in this direction and the oft-used example of the "Agent" type.

- Vicki


On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:

> Touches or Within ... seem to be the closest semantically to "has boundry"
> and Wikidata's examples... yes/no ?
>
> I failed Geography in High School with an A-  not an A+  :)  So help here
> appreciated from anyone.
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 9:17 AM Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>
>> (resending with list cc:'d. I do not know of any documented consumption
>> of these yet)
>>
>> On 23 January 2018 at 15:16, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Have a look around
>>>
>>> issue-1375 Types (1)
>>> GeospatialGeometry <http://pending.schema.org/GeospatialGeometry>
>>> issue-1375 Properties (10)
>>> geospatiallyContains <http://pending.schema.org/geospatiallyContains>,
>>> geospatiallyCoveredBy <http://pending.schema.org/geospatiallyCoveredBy>,
>>>  geospatiallyCovers <http://pending.schema.org/geospatiallyCovers>,
>>> geospatiallyCrosses <http://pending.schema.org/geospatiallyCrosses>,
>>> geospatiallyDisjoint <http://pending.schema.org/geospatiallyDisjoint>,
>>> geospatiallyEquals <http://pending.schema.org/geospatiallyEquals>,
>>> geospatiallyIntersects
>>> <http://pending.schema.org/geospatiallyIntersects>, geospatiallyOverlaps
>>> <http://pending.schema.org/geospatiallyOverlaps>, geospatiallyTouches
>>> <http://pending.schema.org/geospatiallyTouches>, geospatiallyWithin
>>> <http://pending.schema.org/geospatiallyWithin>
>>>
>>> in http://pending.schema.org/ and http://github.com/schemaorg/
>>> schemaorg/issues/1375
>>>
>>> This was in collaboration with W3C's Spatial Web WG. It is an attempt to
>>> capture a set of related distinctions, alongside
>>> http://schema.org/GeoShape and /box, and http://schema.org/GeoCircle
>>> ....
>>>
>>> On 23 January 2018 at 15:06, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "has boundry"
>>>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P4777
>>>> the element that's on the two dimensional border that surrounds the
>>>> subject; the limit of an entity.
>>>>
>>>> Do we have something close to "has boundry" already ?
>>>>
>>>> Examples:
>>>> Old City of Jerusalem <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q213274>
>>>> has boundary <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P4777>
>>>> Walls of Jerusalem <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2918723>
>>>>
>>>> peritoneal cavity <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1030169>
>>>> has boundary <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P4777>
>>>> peritoneum <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9629>
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9629>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Received on Tuesday, 23 January 2018 16:01:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:12:38 UTC