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

Hi Andrea,

In GeoSPARQL, :SpatialObject was more of an abstract class that served 
as the domain and range for topological relations. I don't think we 
considered :SpatialObjects that were neither :Features nor :Geometries.

Thanks,
Matt


On 6/8/2016 5:56 AM, Andrea Perego wrote:
> On 01/06/2016 14:43, matthew perry 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.
>
> Coming back to the comparison with ISO, does this mean then that, in 
> GeoSPARQL, :SpatialObject subsumes also the notion of "real-world 
> phaenomena", and not only features (GFI_Feature) and geometries 
> (GM_Object)?
>
> Andrea
>
>
>> 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
>>> (<mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>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>) 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>> 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>>
>>>> >>> 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> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> In GeoSPARQL SpatialObject is superclass of geometry and spatial
>>>> >>>> feature.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> >>>> From: Joshua Lieberman [mailto: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>>
>>>> >>>> Cc: andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu
>>>> >>>> <mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>;
>>>> >>>> l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl <mailto:l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>;
>>>> >>>> frans.knibbe@geodan.nl <mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>;
>>>> >>>> public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto: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> 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> 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>
>>>> >>>>> orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420
>>>> >>>>> <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420>
>>>> >>>>> researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3
>>>> >>>>> <http://researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> >>>>> From: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com
>>>> >>>>> <mailto: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>)
>>>> >>>>> 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>> 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/
>>
>

Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2016 17:21:40 UTC