Re: Decision needed for issue-38: about different models of spatial things.

Hi Frans - The UK Linked Data environment use the Linked Data API which
defines a _view as a "named collection of properties" - which essentially
allows you to map an identifer to multiple representations.
In the SIRF project I made such views annotatable with the information
model they implemented.

This needs further maturation - but the LDA example I think qualifies as a
BP

Rob


On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 at 22:25 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> One UCR issue that really deserves some urgent progress is issue-38
> <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/38>. It is about a possible
> new use case and possible new requirements as a result from a submission
> from the public. See the thread Additon to use case & new req
> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Jan/0093.html>.
>
> The heart of the matter seems to be that people are missing a way to
> express that two different sets of data about a real world thing are about
> the same real world thing, when the two sets of data use different
> information models, one of which could be geospatial. An example is a
> building. There could be a batch of data describing the building as a
> spatial feature, using spatial semantic standards, and there could be
> another batch of data describing the building as a collection of building
> materials, using some other semantic standard. The submitters of the
> problem feel that there is no way to express that both batches of data are
> about the same subject and that the two batches of data could complement
> each other. Properties like owl:sameAs
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-semantics-20040210/#owl_sameAs>,
> rdfs:seeAlso <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_seealso>, umbel:isLike
> <http://wiki.opensemanticframework.org/index.php/UMBEL_Vocabulary#isLike_Property>
> , bbccore:sameAs
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/ontologies/coreconcepts#terms_sameAs> and
> http://schema.org/about are regarded as insufficient  or inappropriate.
>
> The submitters admit that the problem is not in the spatial domain, but
> feel that the broader W3C communities have yet failed to address the
> problem and that addressing the problem bottom-up, with a clear use case
> and with a certain (spatial) scope could lead to a solution that could
> later be applied more generally.
>
> I am not sure what we should do. On the one hand I think we should guard
> our scope, and not take on things that are really of a broader nature than
> spatial data. On the other hand, this is a real world problem that exists
> with spatial data and that hinders using combining traditional geospatial
> data with other sorts of data. And identifying a requirement is not the
> same as promising to meet that requirement.
>
> If we were to accept this use case, I guess the resulting requirement
> should be something like "It should be possible to express that spatially
> modelled data are about the same subject as data using other information
> models". And I guess that would be a BP requirement.
>
> What do you think? How can we resolve this issue?
>
> Regards,
> Frans
>
>
>