Re: The spatial ontology on WebProtégé

Josh,

Which refactoring tools that are needed are missing? Perhaps we can just
copy the main definitions (Geometry, Feature and SpatialObject) and see if
it is possible to extend those while maintaining backward compatibility? I
think it would be helpful if it is clear how the new work fits on the
existing ontology.

Next to that, would it be a good idea to have a list of requirements for
the updated ontology? We already have broadly expressed wishes, but perhaps
more sharply defined and testable requirements would be helpful. We could
put them on a separate wiki page and hopefully tick them off as work
progresses.

Regards,
Frans



2016-06-23 11:00 GMT+02:00 Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>:

> There doesn’t seem to be a way to do re-factoring in WebProtege, which is
> what is involved, so working directly from GeoSPARQL 1.0 isn’t very
> practical.
>
> Josh
>
> On Jun 23, 2016, at 4:56 AM, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>