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

Hi,

The SpatialThing in Basic Geo and in GeoSPARQL 1.0 includes geometries and other spatial models as well as features, so the idea is to restrict SpatialThing to features and use SpatialModel for geometry, etc.

Josh

> On Sep 1, 2016, at 12:00, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> (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 this.
> 
> 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” is considered equivalent to “feature” in the first sense discussed above. Furthermore, we treat it as equivalent to other commonly used definitions; e.g. Feature from [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? 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.
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> [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