- From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
- Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 14:51:53 +0200
- To: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
- Cc: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>, Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>, Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFVDz42sQZu_XLZ2NM1kswuYmwjr0SrwSpGCe8wp2176K8L6-w@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks Andrea, I will add those ideas (I did already add GeoShape). If you come up with more ideas, please feel free to edit the wiki page. Everyone can use it as a scratch pad. Regards, Frans 2016-05-19 14:39 GMT+02:00 Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>: > 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 12:52:23 UTC