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

Thanks, Frans.

My two cents:


1. Geometry serialisations / datatypes

Other examples to be taken into account include:
- Geohash (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geohash)
- The geo: URI scheme (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo_URI_scheme)
- The serialisation used in Schema.org - see, e.g., 
http://schema.org/GeoShape

On the other hand, I'm not sure the way NeoGeo models geometries can be 
considered a serialisation:

http://geovocab.org/doc/neogeo.html#vocabulary


2. Geometry descriptors

I think we should include also the axis order. This should be implicitly 
specified by the CRS, but needs to be made explicit. Also, some 
platforms may use a default axis order irrespective of the CRS - if I'm 
not mistaken this is the case in PostGIS, where the default axis order 
is lon / lat.


Cheers,

Andrea


On 19/05/2016 13:12, Frans Knibbe wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>         <mailto: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
>>         <tel:%2B44%20%280%2920%207881%204501>
>>         www.edparsons.com <http://www.edparsons.com/> @edparsons
>>
>
>

-- 
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific / Technical Project Officer
European Commission DG JRC
Institute for Environment & Sustainability
Unit H06 - Digital Earth & Reference Data
Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
21027 Ispra VA, Italy

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

Received on Thursday, 19 May 2016 12:39:56 UTC