Re: [Minutes-BP] 2016-04-20

Yes - this is the official ISO/TC 211 OWL implementation, overseen by the ISO/TC 211 Group on Ontology Management, under chair Jean Brodeur (Canada). These ontologies follow the rules defined in ISO 19150-2, and are generated automatically - using automation tools in Sparx Enterprise Architect UML tool - from the UML originals in the so-called Harmonized Model repository hosted on behalf of TC 211 by JRC. 

The OWL implementations were being developed successively, since there was a need to do significant checking of each one after generation and in some cases non-visible pieces of the UML model (e.g. tagged values) required adjustment in order to get a conformant OWL. However, the work appears to have stalled about a year ago, incomplete with respect to the set of standards in the ISO 19100 series that actually have UML models. 

Linda, Clemens and Stuart Williams (Epimorphics) did a study of OWL implementations for INSPIRE a couple of years ago. Since INSPIRE is based on the OGC/ISO stack, this necessarily included an evaluation/critique of the ISO 19150-2 patterns and process. Linda can say more about this, but my impression was that there was significant scepticism about the brute-force rule-based transformation, since what came out could best be characterized as UML-in-OWL, therefore not very idiomatic OWL/RDF [1][2]. [OTOH, there are lots of ontologies out there that display as much or more baggage from earlier frameworks - look at all those based on BFO in the biomedical community for example!]  

[1]  My own successive OWL implementations of O&M addressed the same issue - the one presented at the 2013 Semantic Web conference largely followed ISO 19150-2, while om-lite started from scratch - see http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/ontology-observations-and-sampling-features-alignments-existing-models-0 for more details and references. 

[2] However, a conversation with Clemens at the time suggested that a bigger concern than particular OWL-style was a more fundamental 'why even do geospatial in OWL?', particularly at the level of detail represented in many of the UML models which are implementation-level with lots of typed attributes. I guess the SDW Working Group addressed this question in the original London workshop when the decision was made to set a work program that follows the RDF/semantic web path? (I wasn't there so not sure how rubust the discussion was on this point.) 


Simon J D Cox
Research Scientist
Land and Water
CSIRO
E simon.cox@csiro.au T +61 3 9545 2365 M +61 403 302 672
   Physical: Reception Central, Bayview Avenue, Clayton, Vic 3168
   Deliveries: Gate 3, Normanby Road, Clayton, Vic 3168
   Postal: Private Bag 10, Clayton South, Vic 3169
people.csiro.au/C/S/Simon-Cox
orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420
researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3

________________________________________
From: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
Sent: Saturday, 23 April 2016 4:38 PM
To: Andrea Perego
Cc: Phil Archer; SDW WG Public List
Subject: Re: [Minutes-BP] 2016-04-20

More on the status of this: Status is official tc211 ontology implementation.

> Op 21 apr. 2016 om 10:55 heeft Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu> het volgende geschreven:
>
>> On 21/04/2016 10:51, Linda van den Brink wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The ISO 19107 and other ISO19xxx are available as OWL ontologies here:
>> https://github.com/ISO-TC211/GOM/tree/master/isotc211_GOM_harmonizedOntology
>>
>> This is what I was referring to yesterday. As far as I know these are work in progress. Certainly relevant to look at in the context of defining a spatial ontology.
>
> Many thanks, Linda.
>
> I've tried to use LODE for a human-readable preview, but the import URLs
> (http://def.isotc211.org/iso19107/*) are not working, so the modules
> need to be visualised separately.
>
> In case it may turn to be useful, I include the relevant links below.
>
> Andrea
>
> ----
>
> SpatialSchema
>
> http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ISO-TC211/GOM/master/isotc211_GOM_harmonizedOntology/19107/2003/ISO19107_2003SpatialSchema.owl
>
> Geometry
>
> http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ISO-TC211/GOM/master/isotc211_GOM_harmonizedOntology/19107/2003/iso19107Geometry.owl
>
> GeometryRoot
>
> http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ISO-TC211/GOM/master/isotc211_GOM_harmonizedOntology/19107/2003/iso19107GeometryRoot.owl
>
> GeometricPrimitive
>
> http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ISO-TC211/GOM/master/isotc211_GOM_harmonizedOntology/19107/2003/iso19107GeometricPrimitive.owl
>
> CoordinateGeometry
>
> http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ISO-TC211/GOM/master/isotc211_GOM_harmonizedOntology/19107/2003/iso19107CoordinateGeometry.owl
>
> GeometricComplex
>
> http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ISO-TC211/GOM/master/isotc211_GOM_harmonizedOntology/19107/2003/iso19107GeometricComplex.owl
>
> GeometricAggregates
>
> http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ISO-TC211/GOM/master/isotc211_GOM_harmonizedOntology/19107/2003/iso19107GeometricAggregates.owl
>
> Topology
>
> http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ISO-TC211/GOM/master/isotc211_GOM_harmonizedOntology/19107/2003/iso19107Topology.owl
>
> TopologyRoot
>
> http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ISO-TC211/GOM/master/isotc211_GOM_harmonizedOntology/19107/2003/iso19107TopologyRoot.owl
>
> TopologicalPrimitive
>
> http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ISO-TC211/GOM/master/isotc211_GOM_harmonizedOntology/19107/2003/iso19107TopologicalPrimitive.owl
>
> TopologicalComplex
>
> http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ISO-TC211/GOM/master/isotc211_GOM_harmonizedOntology/19107/2003/iso19107TopologicalComplex.owl
>

Received on Sunday, 24 April 2016 23:14:35 UTC