Difference between W3C Basic Geo "spatial thing" and sdwgeo "spatial thing"

(split out from an already overlong thread [1])

Hi Josh. You said:

> The W3C Basic Geo concept combines everything together. It is “not”
equivalent to a GFM feature. So sdwgeo:SpatialThing does not directly
follow the Basic Geo concept, and it would be good if the BP doc reflected

Can you clarify (for my understanding)?

The W3C Basic Geo definition of SpatialThing states:

"Anything with spatial extent, i.e. size, shape, or position. e.g. people,
places, bowling balls, as well as abstract regions like cubes".

In the BP document § 4. Spatial Things, Features and Geometry [2] I wrote:

"The term “spatial thing <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#dfn-spatial-thing>”
is considered equivalent to “feature
<http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#dfn-feature>” in the first sense discussed
above. Furthermore, we treat it as equivalent to other commonly used
definitions; e.g. *Feature* from [NeoGeo <http://geovocab.org/doc/neogeo/>],
described as “A geographical feature, capable of holding spatial relations”.

Is this wrong?

Note that there is already a hanging issue in this section that says:

"How do we ensure alignment with the terminology being used in the further
development of GeoSPARQL
<https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Further_development_of_GeoSPARQL>? We
expect a new spatial ontology to be published which will contain clear and
unambiguous definitions for the terms used therein."

I guess this is one of the alignment concerns.


[1]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Sep/0016.html
[2]: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#spatial-things-features-and-geometry

Received on Thursday, 1 September 2016 16:01:20 UTC