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

RE: Agenda for Best Practice sub-group, 14:00UTC 1-June-2016

From: <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 23:43:34 +0000
To: <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
CC: <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>, <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <b38e6daf82ce4432baed0a1029203335@exch1-mel.nexus.csiro.au>
In GeoSPARQL SpatialObject is superclass of geometry and spatial feature. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Joshua Lieberman [mailto:jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 1 June 2016 9:39 AM
To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
Cc: andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu; l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl; frans.knibbe@geodan.nl; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Agenda for Best Practice sub-group, 14:00UTC 1-June-2016

Can't SpatialObject be disjoint from GF_Feature? Maybe it's really SpatialRepresentation. Unless we want to call it TransfinitePointSet.

> On May 31, 2016, at 6:20 PM, simon.cox@csiro.au wrote:
> 
> That preserves the 'thing is not a subclass of geometry' axiom, but misses 'geometry is not a subclass of real-world-thing'. 
> I don't see how to do that without a subclass of owl:Thing which is disjoint from GM_Object.  
> 
> Simon J D Cox
> Research Scientist
> Land and Water
> CSIRO
> E simon.cox@csiro.au T +61 3 9545 2365 M +61 403 302 672
>   Physical: Reception Central, Bayview Avenue, Clayton, Vic 3168
>   Deliveries: Gate 3, Normanby Road, Clayton, Vic 3168
>   Postal: Private Bag 10, Clayton South, Vic 3169 
> people.csiro.au/C/S/Simon-Cox
> orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420
> researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 1 June 2016 7:12 AM
> To: Andrea Perego
> Cc: Linda van den Brink; Frans Knibbe; SDW WG (public-sdw-wg@w3.org)
> Subject: Re: Agenda for Best Practice sub-group, 14:00UTC 1-June-2016
> 
>> On May 31, 2016, at 10:01 AM, Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Linda, dear Frans, dear Josh,
>> 
>> About the agenda item on "spatial ontology", I wonder whether we can include here a clarification on the notions of spatial object, feature and geometry in GeoSPARQL - in relation to ISO, and to our discussion on real-world / spatial things.
>> 
>> In particular:
>> 
>> 1. In GeoSPARQL, feature and geometry are explicitly mapped to the corresponding notions in the relevant ISO standards. However, the definition of spatial object in GeoSPARQL doesn't seem to match to the ISO one ("object used for representing a spatial characteristic of a feature" - ISO 19107).
> 
> Yes, it's questionable whether GF_Feature should be considered a "Spatial Object". In ISO 19109, it's a real-world target of discourse, that can have properties, including one or more geometric model representations. I'm tending towards making GF_Feature an owl:Thing, and leaving GM_Object as a SpatialObject.
>> 
>> 2. What in GeoSPARQL corresponds to real-world / spatial things?
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Andrea
>> 
>> 
>> On 30/05/2016 10:22, Linda van den Brink wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Best Practice sub-group telecon agenda is at 
>>> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:BP-Telecon20160601.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Main agenda:
>>> 
>>> *         Progress of BP Narrative 2
>>> 
>>> *         Spatial ontology
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> See you all on Wednesday! (else please advise any regrets).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Linda
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 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 Tuesday, 31 May 2016 23:44:47 UTC

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