RE: Area of spatial objects

Yes, it is the SI unit, but units are not inherent in the definition of the quantity-kind `area`.
Binding units of measure into the quantity-type definition is a convenient shortcut in some application contexts, but this conflates two concepts so the result is no longer a quantity-kind, but is a “scaled-quantity-kind”.
There are other units of measure used for area.

Simon

From: Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
Sent: Thursday, 25 October, 2018 21:11
To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
Cc: public-sdwig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Area of spatial objects


Op do 25 okt. 2018 om 03:42 schreef <Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>>:
Unfortunately http://dbpedia.org/ontology/area is not general - it is bound to m2.

It is bound to the square meter, yes. But isn't the square meter the general (SI) unit of area?
Besides that, having the unit in the definition of the quantity could be seen as an advantage - no need to repeat the unit for each measurement.

Regards,
Frans

http://qudt.org/vocab/quantity#Area is good-ish, but QUDT v2 has been in the pipeline for several years now (more than 5) but its publication is stalled ☹

From: Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl<mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 October, 2018 18:46
To: public-sdwig@w3.org<mailto:public-sdwig@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Area of spatial objects

Hi Nick,

A good general property for specifying area could be http://dbpedia.org/ontology/area. But since you are already using QUDT, how about http://qudt.org/vocab/quantity#Area?


As for relating a feature to different areas depending on CRS, I think it would be best to first link a feature to geometries (a different geometry for each CRS) and then link each geometry to both a CRS and an area.

Greetings,
Frans