Re: sdw bp samePlaceAs

Hi, just for clarification about my comment about so:matches during the call and the minutes:

I meant to make a connection to existing related work and the authors conceptual/philosophical considerations/justifications for the different kinds of similarity.

It was not my intention to introduce an explicit triple stating "sdw:samePlaceAs sub-property of so:matches", (as unfortunately the ontology down) but I rather wanted to raise the question of whether this would be conceptually the case and if so, so:match's definition could serve as an inspiration for that of swd:samePlaceAs.


Cheers,

Claus


On 14.11.2016 04:23, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote:
>
> Unfortunately the similarity ontology is currently 404 L
>
> 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 <http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu/%7Ejpm78/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
>