- From: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 13:44:08 +0000
- To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CADtUq_2aB_vDF2bFatsGQPN18CqCiYL1-U43OfXH5kh0a-KrSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi- BP14 [1] is now updated (and probably too large and unwieldy in its current form - we plan to discuss refactoring in Delft during the general BP doc restructuring discussion). However, one quick question might be resolvable before Delft. In "Possible Approach to Implementation" BP14 talks about the types of links that might be used. Section "2. Spatial relationships" discusses topological relationships. It states: > [GeoSPARQL] defines three families of topological relationships (simple features, Egenhofer and RCC8) all of which are based on the DE-9IM <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DE-9IM> pattern, which specifies the spatial dimension of the intersections of the interiors, boundaries and exteriors of two geometric objects that may be 2-dimensional (e.g. area), 1-dimensional (e.g. linear) or 0-dimensional (e.g. point). ... and ... > Details of the Simple Features, Egenhofer and RCC8 (Region Connection Calculus <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Region_connection_calculus>) topological relations families are provided in [GeoSPARQL] section 7 Topology Vocabulary Extension. BP14 identifies that the simple features relationship family is the most commonly used. The [exam] questions for you are: 1/ should we be stronger with the guidance on using simple features relationships over those from the other families? 2/ do we even need to mention the other two families? (to my untrained brain, they're just confusing!) Thanks in advance. Jeremy [1]: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#entity-level-links
Received on Tuesday, 14 March 2017 13:44:51 UTC