- From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
- Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 10:30:37 +0100
- To: Nicholas.Car@csiro.au
- Cc: public-sdwig@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAFVDz41-xu_XBm9UEu4WMn43RtXxA4CxoMy8TDtvz+S5whbkng@mail.gmail.com>
Hello Nick, I don't think it would be problem if the coordinates of the geometry are unknown. In that case the property with the coordinates (e.g. geosparql:asWKT) would be absent. Features with a point geometry and an area could be published as a feature having two geometries: one with coordinates and one with an area. The other examples you mentioned could be dealt with the same way. For instance, have a feature with three geometries - one with only an area, one with an area and a CRS and one with just coordinates. There would then be a future option to specify that some of those geometry representations are actually the same thing. I am not saying this way of publishing your data is better than another, but I do think it is possible. And perhaps this method can be used together with another method, leaving it up to the data consumer how she/he/it wants to query the data. Regards, Frans Op wo 7 nov. 2018 om 13:55 schreef Car, Nicholas (L&W, Dutton Park) <Nicholas.Car@csiro.au>: > Hi Frans, > > > > What if I wanted to publish Features’ areas without also publishing > geometries? What about features with a point geometry and an area, no > polygon. Also, I have data where an area is given and also a polygon but I > don’t know for sure if the area was calculated from the polygon. In fact I > have data with an area and an Albers area and a geometry and don’t really > know what happened to make which. > > > > So, I want to be able to represent area as a spatial property of a > feature, independently of any geometry. For this I will try using > Observations and Measurements-style mechanics for this. > > > > I think I might use subclassing of a sosa:ObservableProperty ( > https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-ssn/#SOSAObservableProperty) to express > spatial properties such as area and then relate then to a geo:Feature which > would also, by SOSA logic, be a sosa:FeatureOfInterest. I may invent > modelling to relate that spatial property to a geometry, but this wouldn’t > be required, just nice to have if known. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Nick > > > > *From:* Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> > *Sent:* Monday, 5 November 2018 6:22 PM > *To:* public-sdwig@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: Area of spatial objects > > > > Hi Nick, > > > > I wonder: Doesn't the fact that multiple areas for a single spatial thing > are published mean that the areas are calculated from different geometric > representations of that spatial thing? That would logically make the area a > property of a geometry. Besides, the geometry instance could be used to > link to the CRS (e.g. Albers), ideally by URI. > > > > CRS data linked to a geometry could also give access to the basic unit of > the CRS (e.g. meter) and through that provide information on the units of > properties derived from the geometry (like the area), but that would demand > a fair amount of reasoning on the part of the data consumer. > > > > Regards, > > Frans > > >
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2018 09:31:13 UTC