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

OK, I have just made a new wiki page
<https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Further_development_of_GeoSPARQL>
that links from the existing wiki page about the agreed spatial ontology
<https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/An_agreed_spatial_ontology>. The page
is about a specfic approach to how to achieve the spatial ontology - we
start with GeoSPARQL 1.0. That choice marks a significant narrowing of
scope, and I hope the scope can be narrowed even further. The new wiki page
is for collecting ideas on how we could further develop GeoSPARQL.
Hopefully some people with good ideas can contribute and hopefully we can
eventually align all ideas. Josh and Rob: Do you think the new wiki page
can be a good way forward, and if so, can you manage to incorporate your
ideas and information? If you agree this is a step in the right direction
we could the take some action to involve more people in thinking along.

Regards,
Frans


2016-05-19 2:56 GMT+02:00 Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>:

> 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
>>
>>
>>