- From: Andreas Harth <harth@kit.edu>
- Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:35:19 +0100
- To: Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>, <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Hi Ed, On 10/22/2015 12:30, Ed Parsons wrote: > So... Can we imagine situations where a "thing" does not have an > associated "feature" ? hm. "Thing" is very generic, and in my mind could be what RFC 3986 calls "resource". A "resource" can be something real, such as London or Big Ben, but also abstract, such as a chemical element, or zero, one, infinity. I just realised that the dictionary definition of "feature" is equally broad. I have interpreted feature thus far as something "spatial", as in "the map showed roads and other features" (WordNet). In NeoGeo, we use "geometry" to describe the spatial extent of a "feature". Note that multiple source can provide "geometries" for the same "thing/feature" - the polygons from NUTS describing London are much more coarse grained than the polygons from GADM, for instance. Cheers, Andreas.
Received on Thursday, 22 October 2015 13:35:53 UTC