RE: sdw bp samePlaceAs

Unfortunately the similarity ontology is currently 404 :(

https://archive.org/services/purl/purl/twc/ontologies/similarity.owl shows http://purl.org/twc/ontologies/similarity.owl redirects to http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu/~jpm78/tw/identity/similarity.owl

Simon

From: Kerry Taylor [mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au]
Sent: Monday, 14 November 2016 1:51 PM
To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Subject: sdw bp samePlaceAs

I read with interest the minutes from the BP meeting on this topic  https://www.w3.org/2016/11/09-sdwbp-minutes#item05

It seems to me that so:matches is very close to what we need. However, I am swayed by the argument that "samePlaceAs" is a bit more specialised (it seems to say something a bit more. If informally,  about which properties could be substituted).  But I cannot follow the argument from the minutes concerning why  sdw:samePlaceAs should not be defined as  a subproperty of so:matches.
Does it relate to the status of the so ontology?


Further, if we are going to do this at all I suggest a few other basic  informal spatial relationships (of the top of my head) : sdw:NextDoorTo, sdw:closestSimilar, sdw:Nearby (or foaf:basedNear), sdw:sameLocality, sdw:withinEasyReachof, sdw:justDowntheRoadFrom, .... Or something like that.  For commercial businesses, real estate agents, community groups (remember the fete?), social scientists? Most of these would be neither transitive nor  reflexive but  maybe some are symmetric.

Kerry