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

Re: has boundry - Do we have something close ?

From: Michael Andrews <nextcontent01@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 22:05:25 +0530
Message-ID: <CAF9ZrJ2jerQ9micmqcz4ntTQCDxQnboo7HAOaJqEMzGHG8t0wQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vicki Tardif <vtardif@google.com>
Cc: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
Is similar to FAO's Geopolitical Ontology "has border with" property:
http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/geoinfo/geopolitical/resource/hasBorderWith

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Vicki Tardif <vtardif@google.com> wrote:

> 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/sc
>>>> hemaorg/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 16:35:49 UTC

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