- From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 08:17:37 -0700
- To: Simon.Cox@csiro.au, frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
- Cc: public-sdwig@w3.org
- Message-ID: <cdbb0740-56d0-d7dc-a356-661dff132738@ucsb.edu>
On 10/26/18 12:19 AM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote: > > 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. > Very well said and an important distinction. The square meter is the basis for the scalar, not the property itself. > 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 m^2 . > > 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 L > > *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 > -- Krzysztof Janowicz Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara 4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060 Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/ Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
Received on Friday, 26 October 2018 15:18:03 UTC