Re: The spatial ontology on WebProtégé

Hi Josh,

If the plan is to further develop GeoSPARQL, wouldn't it make sense to load
the current GeoSPARQL vocabularies in WebProtégé  and use that as a
baseline?

Regards,
Frans

2016-06-22 17:41 GMT+02:00 Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>:

> Frans,
>
> The ontology is still not very extensively documented, but I’m working on
> that.
>
> Josh
>
> On Jun 22, 2016, at 11:34 AM, Joshua Lieberman <
> jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com> wrote:
>
> Probably both. I haven’t really figured out how to do re-factoring on Web
> Protege, so I’ve just replaced the existing owl file with a new one.
>
> Josh
>
> On Jun 22, 2016, at 11:26 AM, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
>
> Hello Josh,
>
> I have added a reference to the draft ontology you shared on WebProtégé
> <http://webprotege.stanford.edu/#Edit:projectId=fa09f9df-1078-4c17-a16c-ae83695ff431>
> on the wiki page about further development of GeoSPARQL
> <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Further_development_of_GeoSPARQL>.
>
> I would like to comment on the ontology, but before I do perhaps it is
> good to decide how to comment. Comments could be posted to our e-mail list,
> but could also be added to the WebProtégé project. Do you favour either
> method? Or both methods?
>
> Regards,
> Frans
>
>
>
>
>