W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > May 2016

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

From: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 00:56:18 +0000
Message-ID: <CACfF9LyymzhoD65Ko4AnzuFQTw7A62+ka44QsComJR304VoFfQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>, Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>
Cc: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, SDW Chairs <team-sdw-chairs@w3.org>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Having a very lightweight ontology that defines a "feature" would be a
great start.  As a test case, I'd like to explore defining an RDF-Datacube
dimension using such an ontology - the observation:featureOfInterest
ontology. Personally, I dont think importing the full ISO 19150 ontology is
a workable strategy - but one could have annotation properties (or an
additional module) that handles the alignment to 19150.  At the moment I
see many attempts - but nothing accepted by the community at large.

simply, one ought to be able to look at a dimension defined against a
datatype, and/or set of objects, and discover that such objects a spatial
features and thus the dimension supports operations relevant to spatial
features - such as find the properties of such features and running a
filter on them.

I'm happy to help shepherd this Use Case through the emerging plan - and
verify the solution is implementable. I need this in the context of other
BP work OGC is involved in.

Rob

On Thu, 19 May 2016 at 02:03 Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
wrote:

> 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> 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 @edparsons
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 19 May 2016 00:57:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:21 UTC