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

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

From: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 21:54:16 +0000
Message-ID: <CADtUq_3evM8MFE2Fum99iWhVoaYvGaE8HMFGTSx9ij95D2DNag@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
That makes sense - and in the BP doc we say:

"the spatial thing <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#dfn-spatial-thing> is
disjoint from the geometry object".

That being the case, it would be good to be able to refer to the sdwgeo
definitions as soon as they're stable.


On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 at 17:48 Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>

> 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 <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.
> 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
Received on Thursday, 1 September 2016 21:54:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:25 UTC