Re: Agenda for Best Practice sub-group, 14:00UTC 1-June-2016

Hi Josh,

thanks for taking the time - it does help me at least - however if thats
the "summary" we cant expect this to be easy for anyone - including
ourselves! :-)

 IMHO this suggest that a strong guidance (rather than a reasoned argument
and options) is going to be necessary to achieve any interoperability in
the wild

coupla things -

1)  I think there is a bit of class/instance confusion here - i would have
thought that owl:equivalentClass would be appropriate for the proposed
relationship between Feature/SpatialThing

2) We started being uncomfortable with three concepts, now we have 4
(adding a Model) :-)

3) Addresses (and I recently did a lot of work modelling a range of
different subtly different address types) are intrinsically topological
constructs - but they maye have multiple _observed_ geometries - and
usually much metadata is required about how the geometry was derived from
other data.

4) Placenames  are indeed a spearate issue - in HY_features we identify
lack of a canonical support for the concept of names applied to features.
If you mean a subset of physical features - then thats just a feature, so
I'm presuming we are talking about the need for a name for a feature to
have identity (essentially be reified so we can have metadata about it -
such as its temporal valid range, language, script, whether its offensive,
endonym or exonym etc. )

5) SpatialModel - is a superclass best - since different models are not
disjoint (topology, geometry, geometry with topology, topology with derived
geometry (linear referencing) ) ?

IMHO your instincts are right to include these concerns - because a very
large proportion of people looking to the "spatial thinginess ontology"
will be coming from the perspective of addresses or placenames,  and most
of the rest may well be drawn to it as a way to escape the "simple
features" crunch, where properties need to have a lot of metadata attached,
and be described a lot better ( another model )

So for its competency, I would be looking for a few requirements:
1) the ability to describe what each of multiple geometry properties of a
feature are, and hence what operations may be performed (with mappings to
various GeoSPARQL modules)
2) a set of "well-known" geometry roles ("centroid", "boundary", "bounding
box")
3) ability to attach metadata (CRS, precision, etc - )  to geometry
instances via multiple  methods: instance identity, embedded properties of
instances, class models for feature type, properties of a containing set of
instances, class model of the containing set.
4) ability to use entailment regimes to propagate geometry property
metadata down from the most abstract to the instance - so clients can
simply use a geometry and access all the metadata they need,  or run a
query against a set based on such properties.
5) ability to characterise the heterogeneous usage of geometry properties
as equivalent to a canonical set
6) safety if using owl:sameAs on  instances (of  declared equivalent
classes) to combine properties from instances with non-unique names.


Probably others can reword these requirements better - i suspect we need
three forms of each requirement :
* using terms from the spatial domain with known meaning
* using "lay" terms for a general public
* using formal DL terminology - and ideally even a DL formalism.


Maybe these requirements are buried in the more general requirements - or
could be mapped to them - but can we manage a set of requirements
specifically for a "spatial ontology" and somehow use this to help progress
the broader BP  - i.e. we can have a component of the BP for these
concerns, and simply delegate relevant requirements to this component?

Rob



On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 at 05:58 Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
wrote:

> There are a couple of issues with GeoSPARQL and other existing “spatial”
> ontologies.
>
> Critical to the general feature model and ISO 19109 is a distinction
> between something one discerns and discourses about in the world, and a
> spatial model (particularly a geometry) for that something. We need to
> preserve that disjunction, however both the distinction and the term
> “feature” we use for the “something” is a puzzlement to most
> non-geospatialists in the world.
>
> Having identified two “something"'s in the world, the next step that most
> people want to take is describe how they are related. Many of those
> relations are directly or indirectly spatial —  “touching”, “not disjoint”,
> “near”, etc.. Mathematically, spatial relations are only computable between
> spatial models such as geometries, but intuitively those relations should
> be transitive to the “somethings” themselves.
>
>
> As Matt noted, in geoSPARQL both Feature and Geometry were subclassed from
> SpatialObject in order to apply spatial relations to either of them,
> despite some misgivings as to whether a Feature should be considered as
> innately spatial. That explains the three concepts. Reducing to just
> Spatial Object (or even owl:Thing) as representing our concept of Feature
> and subclassing Geometry from it would remove the disjunction between
> Feature and Geometry. SpatialObject and Geometry could be separate
> disjunctive owl:Thing’s, but that would make it more difficult to restrict
> spatial relations to either SpatialObject or Geometry, and leave no place
> for other spatial models such as addresses.
>
> Are features inherently spatial? In the GFM, they only have to have
> identity (which by the way disqualifies owl:Thing since they can be blank
> nodes).r However, in GFM, feature refers to both type and instance. A type
> itself is not spatial, but each instance can be presumed to recognize
> phenomena in the real world whether their position and extent is known /
> knowable or not. In OWL, a feature is either an individual or a collection
> of individuals, so it can be argued that an OWL Feature is in fact spatial.
> Quite apart from this theory, most people would conclude that a geographic
> feature is something spatial for all but rather un-interesting edge cases.
>
> So we still have two disjunctive concepts, but if both of them can be
> considered spatial so that spatial relations could be applied, although we
> would want to be able to state that a spatial relation involving a
> “feature” implies a possible relation involving geometry. The present
> GeoSPARQL model make sense, then, except perhaps for the name “Feature”. We
> could even include both SpatialThing and Feature in SpatialObject with
> owl:SameAs, for those who can’t get their heads around the “F-word”.
>
> An alternative with some pluses and minuses, would be separate classes for
> SpatialThing a owl:Thing and SpatialModel a owl:Thing, restricting spatial
> relations to one or the other and placing Geometry in SpatialModel along
> with Addresses, Placenames, and other not-directly-geometric locators. This
> adds SpatialModel to the mix, but makes it easier to set every type of
> spatial model disjoint from spatial things (that are pretty much
> distinguished from owl:Thing only by a required identity).
>
> [I would probably leave topological elements out of SpatialModel or
> SpatialObject, since spatial relations will generally not be applicable and
> I continue to think that topo elements need not be disjoint from features —
> they really just add “to, from” object properties to a feature and are
> generally unique e.g. a feature representing a topo edge will not also
> represent a node or a face.]
>
> So, three proposals:
>
> 1) Leave GeoSPARQL as it is and add an equivalent SpatialThing:
>
> owl:Thing <- SpatialObject <- Feature == SpatialThing
>    <- Geometry
>    <- other spatial models such as LOCN
>
>
> 2) Separate Thing and Model:
>
> owl:Thing <- SpatialThing (== Feature)
> <- SpatialModel <- Geometry + other spatial models such as LOCN
>
> 3) All together:
>
> owl:Thing <- SpatialObject <- SpatialThing (== Feature)
>    <- SpatialModel <- Geometry + other spatial models such as LOCN
>
>
> I’m inclined toward 2), also thinking that it’s important to define
> SpatialThing as having at least 1 SpatialModel property, so it’s clear as
> in GeoRSS that adding a hasSpatialModel property to a resource makes that
> resource a SpatialThing.
>
> Let me know what you think, but I’ll put a version of 2) into WebProtege
> over the weekend so we  can poke it around.
>
> Josh
>
> Joshua Lieberman, Ph.D.
> Principal
> Tumbling Walls
> jlieberman*tumblingwalls.com
> +1 617 431 6431
>
> On Jun 3, 2016, at 9:46 AM, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au> wrote:
>
> lets get the model right - and support the behaviours we need - then argue
> about the best names.
> If we have an issue with the current GeoSPARQL model - then we have a
> decision point around whether it compromises its usefulness, and hence if
> and how we use it.
> Is anyone able to summarise the concerns with the current GeoSparql
> model?  What is it missing and what does it do strangely or incorrectly?
>
>
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 at 23:09 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
>
>> To me the names or labels of the concepts are less important than their
>> usefulness. If we can manage with just two concepts (classes) for geometry
>> and spatial things, then that would be a victory for simplicity and
>> clarity. That said, I think for the world at large a label like 'spatial
>> thing' is better at conveying the meaning of the term than 'feature'.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Frans
>>
>> 2016-06-03 14:56 GMT+02:00 Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>:
>>
>>> So are we saying that a Feature is the same as a Spatial Object?
>>>
>>> It probably depends on your background which of those names is most
>>> evocative - obviously both are, in themselves, open to interpretation.
>>>
>>> To me 'feature' makes me think of maps, whereas 'spatial object' (while
>>> not necessarily the best name ever - 'spatial thing' while also very vague
>>> is perhaps slightly better because of all the software and information
>>> modelling uses of 'object') makes me think of something I could see or walk
>>> round or hit with a hammer.
>>>
>>> Whatever we call it, I think we should be talking about things you can
>>> see and walk round.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3 June 2016 at 13:18, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "(something like: things that have some kind of spatial presence" ... well
>>>> - thats what a feature is, and it is at least defined somewhere - so surely
>>>> we drop the more ambiguous term "spatial object" whose existence is a
>>>> modelling artefact, not a real world need.  To me "spatial object" is too
>>>> easily confused with either a feature or a geometry
>>>>
>>>> Feature and geometry both have real-world analogues - if we really need
>>>> something like "spatial object" to support some logic then perhaps we can
>>>> start off by defining why we need, and then debate a suitable name.
>>>>
>>>> rob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 at 19:59 Linda van den Brink <
>>>> l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 That’s exactly what I was thinking this morning when I read this
>>>>> thread. Without being able to put into words why I’m thinking this, as of
>>>>> yet…
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Linda
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Van:* Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
>>>>> *Verzonden:* vrijdag 3 juni 2016 11:39
>>>>> *Aan:* Joshua Lieberman; SDW WG Public List; Simon Cox; matthew perry
>>>>> *Onderwerp:* Re: Agenda for Best Practice sub-group, 14:00UTC
>>>>> 1-June-2016
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> GeoSPARQL defines three core entities: Feature, SpatialObject and
>>>>> Geometry. However, in my (possibly too naive) view we only need two core
>>>>> concepts:
>>>>>
>>>>>    1. spatial things: (something like: things that have some kind of
>>>>>    spatial presence, and that can have spatial relationships)
>>>>>    2. geometry: (something like: an ordered set of n-dimensional
>>>>>    points, can be used to model the spatial presence of a spatial thing)
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there really a need to have a third concept (Feature)? If the world
>>>>> could manage with two core concepts, that would be preferable, wouldn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Frans
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2016-06-02 17:54 GMT+02:00 Joshua Lieberman <
>>>>> jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>> Simon, Matt, et al,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I’m struggling a bit with this right now. Theoretically, spatial
>>>>> relationships can only be computed / tested between geometries. Features
>>>>> are discerned Things in the world that don’t necessarily have spatial
>>>>> representations and so it makes sense that they are not themselves spatial
>>>>> objects. Features and geometries can be disjoint whether or not feature is
>>>>> a spatial object, but it gets awkward to make features disjoint from all
>>>>> other spatial objects (e.g. address, geographic name, region) if features
>>>>> are also spatial objects.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [Topological relationship creation also requires topological elements,
>>>>> although there is a question in my mind whether those elements are directly
>>>>> spatial spatial objects or an algebraic reduction of certain spatial
>>>>> relationships. It is related to the dimensionality issue, since topo
>>>>> elements are distinguished by dimension. There is also a question in my
>>>>> mind whether features and topo elements have to be disjoint as features and
>>>>> geometries are or whether a road centerline can also be a topo edge.]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Conceptually, though, one would like to express relationships between
>>>>> features themselves. For example, I would (very much) like to assert /
>>>>> infer / query that one hydrological catchment (a portion of a landscape) is
>>>>> inside of another one, not that one possible geometric representation of
>>>>> one catchment is interior to one possible geometric representation of the
>>>>> other catchment.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems that we can relate the two with a property chain, so that a
>>>>> relationship between geometries implies a relationship between the
>>>>> features, but does it make sense to use the same relationships for both if
>>>>> feature is not a spatial object? Alternatively, we could create “feature
>>>>> relationships”, e.g. gfInside for inside:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> SubObjectPropertyOf(
>>>>>
>>>>>    ObjectPropertyChain( :hasGeometry ehInsite [ owl:inverseOf
>>>>> :hasParent] )
>>>>>
>>>>>    :gfInside
>>>>>
>>>>>  )
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In the end, I think we want to enable people to form the assertions
>>>>> that make sense to them, but also maximize the possibilities for query and
>>>>> inference. So I’m inclined towards creating feature-specific relations,
>>>>> some of which can be inferred from spatial object relations. Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> —Josh
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:49 PM, simon.cox@csiro.au wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> “Regional Shape” and “Regional Area” are both a bit iffy:
>>>>>
>>>>> “area” and “region” are approximate synonyms;
>>>>>
>>>>> “shape” sounds like just the outline.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Joshua Lieberman [mailto:jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com
>>>>> <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>]
>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 1 June 2016 11:23 PM
>>>>> *To:* matthew perry <matthew.perry@oracle.com>
>>>>> *Cc:* public-sdw-wg@w3.org
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: Agenda for Best Practice sub-group, 14:00UTC
>>>>> 1-June-2016
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Matt,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for giving us a perspective on the current form of GeoSPARQL.
>>>>> Your point about qualitative relations is well taken. This was discussed
>>>>> fairly extensively last summer at the Vespucci Institute, but we discovered
>>>>> that most of the relations of interest still require at least some spatial
>>>>> characterization of the feature, at least a regional dimensionality. For
>>>>> example, New York inside of United States presumes that the U.S. is at
>>>>> least a 2-dimensional region. The relation “along” requires that the object
>>>>> feature have an elongation in at least one dimension.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been thinking that we should add a subclass of SpatialObject,
>>>>> RS_Object (Regional Shape) that provides this regionality to support
>>>>> qualitative reasoning. Then we could keep Feature out of SpatialObject and
>>>>> still do qualitative reasoning.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <image001.png>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Josh
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 1, 2016, at 8:43 AM, matthew perry <matthew.perry@oracle.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> The Feature subClassOf SpatialObject does seem a bit awkward in
>>>>> retrospect. The main idea was that for qualitative spatial reasoning, we
>>>>> don't need quantitative geometries. It should be possible to express
>>>>> topological relations between features directly (e.g., New York inside
>>>>> United States), so we defined SpatialObject as the class of things that can
>>>>> have topological relations, and Feature and Geometry are disjoint
>>>>> subClasses of SpatialObject.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Matt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/1/2016 4:58 AM, Clemens Portele wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hm, yes, good question. I did not remember that we made geo:Feature a
>>>>> geo:SpatialObject in the GeoSPARQL development. I agree with you, from the
>>>>> definitions this seems wrong. Perhaps that could be rediscussed, if there
>>>>> is a GeoSPARQL revision.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Clemens
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1. Juni 2016 at 10:38:24, Andrea Perego (
>>>>> andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi, Clemens.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/06/2016 8:26, Clemens Portele wrote:
>>>>> > If we use 19107 as the basis, a TP_Object is a SpatialObject, too.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > This is the definition of "topological object" (the TP_Object):
>>>>> > "spatial object representing spatial characteristics that are
>>>>> invariant
>>>>> > under continuous transformations".
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The definition of "geometric object" (the GM_Object) is: "spatial
>>>>> object
>>>>> > representing a geometric set" where geometric set is "a set of
>>>>> points".
>>>>> >
>>>>> > GeoSPARQL is consistent with this, geo:Geometry is a sub-class of
>>>>> > geo:SpatialObject. If we would define xyz:Topology it should be a
>>>>> > sub-class of geoSpatialObject, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is unclear to me is why, in GeoSPARQL, feature is made a subclass
>>>>> of spatial object.
>>>>>
>>>>> Putting together the relevant ISO definitions:
>>>>> - feature: "abstraction of real-world phenomena" (ISO 19101, 19107,
>>>>> 19109, 19156)
>>>>> - spatial object: "object used for representing a spatial
>>>>> characteristic
>>>>> of a feature" (ISO 19107)
>>>>> - geometry (geometric object): "spatial object representing a
>>>>> geometric
>>>>> set" (ISO 19107)
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on them, a feature is not a spatial object - or I'm missing
>>>>> something?
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrea
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > Clemens
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On 1. Juni 2016 at 03:37:53, Joshua Lieberman
>>>>> > (jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com <mailto:jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
>>>>> <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>) wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Yes, a GM_object instance is generally a geometry, but there can be
>>>>> >> other spatial objects such as linear references, addresses,
>>>>> >> placenames, etc. I’m pondering now whether TP_Object should also be
>>>>> a
>>>>> >> subclass of SpatialObject, but I think it too is a form of spatial
>>>>> model.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> “Object” is vague, but possibly less confusing than “model” or
>>>>> >> “representation”. The confusion may be a fundamental property of
>>>>> the
>>>>> >> GFM, because one first models the worlds as features, then models
>>>>> the
>>>>> >> features in turn as spatial objects. Making both feature and
>>>>> geometry
>>>>> >> disjoint subclasses of spatial object in GeoSPARQL means, I think,
>>>>> >> that SpatialObject really can’t mean anything except a step of
>>>>> removal
>>>>> >> from owl:Thing.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Josh
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>> On May 31, 2016, at 9:11 PM, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au
>>>>> >>> <mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au> <rob@metalinkage.com.au>> wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> it all depends what you mean :-)
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> I though a GM_object was specifically a geometry. As such it is
>>>>> >>> independent of any real world thing - but it can be used as a
>>>>> >>> property of a real world thing to define a spatial characteristic.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> as such I would say GM_Object and (real world thing) are disjoint.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> What I dont really understand is what a Spatial Object is, except
>>>>> it
>>>>> >>> seems to declare that Egenhofer and other spatial operations can
>>>>> be
>>>>> >>> supported on either GM_Object or GF_Feature.{geomproperty}. One
>>>>> >>> wonders if a more elegant way of declaring this was possible
>>>>> without
>>>>> >>> introducing a very strange abstract notion (and the confusion here
>>>>> I
>>>>> >>> think is the evidence for the strangeness)
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> OTOH running with the geoSPARQL as-is makes sense unless its
>>>>> provably
>>>>> >>> broken in terms of the inferences it allows, so I'll just get over
>>>>> my
>>>>> >>> distaste of incompatible naming vs. intent.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Rob
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 at 09:58 Joshua Lieberman
>>>>> >>> <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com
>>>>> <mailto:jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com> <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>>
>>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> I’m questioning whether that is a good idea.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>> On May 31, 2016, at 7:43 PM, simon.cox@csiro.au
>>>>> >>>> <mailto:simon.cox@csiro.au> <simon.cox@csiro.au> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> In GeoSPARQL SpatialObject is superclass of geometry and spatial
>>>>> >>>> feature.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> >>>> From: Joshua Lieberman [mailto:jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com
>>>>> <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>]
>>>>> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, 1 June 2016 9:39 AM
>>>>> >>>> To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au
>>>>> >>>> <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au> <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>>
>>>>> >>>> Cc: andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu
>>>>> >>>> <mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
>>>>> <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>;
>>>>> >>>> l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl <mailto:l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
>>>>> <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>;
>>>>> >>>> frans.knibbe@geodan.nl <mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
>>>>> <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>;
>>>>> >>>> public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
>>>>> <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
>>>>> >>>> Subject: Re: Agenda for Best Practice sub-group, 14:00UTC
>>>>> >>>> 1-June-2016
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Can't SpatialObject be disjoint from GF_Feature? Maybe it's
>>>>> >>>> really SpatialRepresentation. Unless we want to call it
>>>>> >>>> TransfinitePointSet.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>> On May 31, 2016, at 6:20 PM, simon.cox@csiro.au
>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:simon.cox@csiro.au> <simon.cox@csiro.au> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> That preserves the 'thing is not a subclass of geometry' axiom,
>>>>> >>>>> but misses 'geometry is not a subclass of real-world-thing'.
>>>>> >>>>> I don't see how to do that without a subclass of owl:Thing
>>>>> >>>>> which is disjoint from GM_Object.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Simon J D Cox
>>>>> >>>>> Research Scientist
>>>>> >>>>> Land and Water
>>>>> >>>>> CSIRO
>>>>> >>>>> E simon.cox@csiro.au <mailto:simon.cox@csiro.au>
>>>>> <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
>>>>> >>>>> <http://people.csiro.au/C/S/Simon-Cox>
>>>>> <http://people.csiro.au/C/S/Simon-Cox>
>>>>> >>>>> orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420
>>>>> >>>>> <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420>
>>>>> <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420>
>>>>> >>>>> researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3
>>>>> >>>>> <http://researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3>
>>>>> <http://researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3>
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> >>>>> From: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com
>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
>>>>> <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>>
>>>>> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, 1 June 2016 7:12 AM
>>>>> >>>>> To: Andrea Perego
>>>>> >>>>> Cc: Linda van den Brink; Frans Knibbe; SDW WG
>>>>> >>>>> (public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
>>>>> <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>)
>>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: Agenda for Best Practice sub-group, 14:00UTC
>>>>> >>>>> 1-June-2016
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> On May 31, 2016, at 10:01 AM, Andrea Perego
>>>>> >>>>>> <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu
>>>>> >>>>>> <mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
>>>>> <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Linda, dear Frans, dear Josh,
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> About the agenda item on "spatial ontology", I wonder whether
>>>>> >>>>>> we can include here a clarification on the notions of spatial
>>>>> >>>>>> object, feature and geometry in GeoSPARQL - in relation to
>>>>> >>>>>> ISO, and to our discussion on real-world / spatial things.
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> In particular:
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> 1. In GeoSPARQL, feature and geometry are explicitly mapped to
>>>>> >>>>>> the corresponding notions in the relevant ISO standards.
>>>>> >>>>>> However, the definition of spatial object in GeoSPARQL doesn't
>>>>> >>>>>> seem to match to the ISO one ("object used for representing a
>>>>> >>>>>> spatial characteristic of a feature" - ISO 19107).
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Yes, it's questionable whether GF_Feature should be considered
>>>>> >>>>> a "Spatial Object". In ISO 19109, it's a real-world target of
>>>>> >>>>> discourse, that can have properties, including one or more
>>>>> >>>>> geometric model representations. I'm tending towards making
>>>>> >>>>> GF_Feature an owl:Thing, and leaving GM_Object as a
>>>>> SpatialObject.
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> 2. What in GeoSPARQL corresponds to real-world / spatial
>>>>> things?
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> Andrea
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> On 30/05/2016 10:22, Linda van den Brink wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>> The Best Practice sub-group telecon agenda is at
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:BP-Telecon20160601.
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>> Main agenda:
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>> * Progress of BP Narrative 2
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>> * Spatial ontology
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>> See you all on Wednesday! (else please advise any regrets).
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>> Linda
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> --
>>>>> >>>>>> Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
>>>>> >>>>>> Scientific / Technical Project Officer European Commission DG
>>>>> JRC
>>>>> >>>>>> Institute for Environment & Sustainability Unit H06 - Digital
>>>>> >>>>>> Earth &
>>>>> >>>>>> Reference Data Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
>>>>> >>>>>> 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> <SpatialObject.png><SpatialObject.png>
>>>>> >>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
>>>>> Scientific / Technical Project Officer
>>>>> European Commission DG JRC
>>>>> Institute for Environment & Sustainability
>>>>> Unit H06 - Digital Earth & Reference Data
>>>>> Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
>>>>> 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
>>>>>
>>>>> https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>