Re: How to proceed with work on the spatial ontology task?

This is probably a type locality for W3C - OGC collaboration, as we should develop a GeoSPARQL change request and SWG charter that contains a proposed update to the feature data ontology part at least, that the SDWWG can then reference in BP. The charter could be considered at the OGC June meeting. The technical challenge (besides the usual simplicity vs capability)  is that there is pretty good consensus on the concepts and principles, but we’re divided by the way those materialize in different encodings.

Josh

> On May 18, 2016, at 11:54 AM, Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com> wrote:
> 
> Frans I think it is up to you and Josh to suggest a way forward, I would suggest you focus on a very strict scope of documenting an  ontology based on that used by GeoSPARQL, perhaps just start with a shared document/wiki for comment ?
> 
> Ed
> 
> On Wed, 18 May 2016 at 10:42 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl <mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>> wrote:
> Dear chairpeople, Josh,
> 
> In the teleconference of 2016-04-27 <https://www.w3.org/2016/04/27-sdw-minutes> we discussed the spatial ontology mentioned in the charter as a part of the BP deliverable. Although no official actions or resolutions were recorded, we did agree that working on this topic was needed, that the work would be separate from work on the BP document, that Josh and I would try to take point and that we would take the current GeoSPARQL standard as a starting point.
> 
> How can we take this forward? Should we first try to form a group of interested people? Or should we just start somewhere, for example by making a wish list for a next version of GeoSPARQL, and making that interesting enough for many people to get involved?
> 
> Regards,
> Frans
> -- 
> Ed Parsons FRGS
> Geospatial Technologist, Google
> 
> Google Voice +44 (0)20 7881 4501
> www.edparsons.com <http://www.edparsons.com/> @edparsons
>