Re: [sdw] New project proposal: OWL Space (#1095)

It’s not just OGC, but is referred to as the Cook & Daniels methodology by Werner Kuhn and others. RDF seemed to be this great opportunity to have less of a stark difference between concept / type and instance / tuple. Perhaps because RDF can also be used for implementation or just because of familiarity, OGC has been reluctant to move from UML towards RDF / OWL as a language of abstraction despite dissonance between UML and many implementation languages. With domain conceptual models, type catalogs, etc., the abstract <-> implementation dichotomy really isn’t what it used to be anyways, even in OGC.

That said, there is at least an update of the spatial schema (geometry, topology) abstract spec (AS Topic 1 / ISO 19107). Plenty of concepts to drag into OWL/RDF as long as it isn’t done robotically.

As far as an update to GeoSPARQL, I’ve tried to push this for a while, but my sense is that there has not been much agreement on what the requirements for such an update might be. I tried in SDWWG days to modularize it (sdwgeo) and bring a core closer to GeoRSS (ogeo), but there wasn’t much interest. Some concerted effort to figure out what is needed might get past the pitfalls of special needs that most other spatial ontologies seem to fall into.

The drafts are still here: https://geosemweb.org/ogeo <https://geosemweb.org/ogeo> and https://geosemweb.org/sdwgeo <https://geosemweb.org/sdwgeo>. We will have the opportunity to discuss GeoSPARQL update prospects in the Geosemantics DWG in Leuven and try to progress in understanding what the needs might drive this.

—Josh

> On Jun 6, 2019, at 11:17 PM, Simon Cox <notifications@github.com> wrote:
> 
> Indeed. 
> 
> What notation should be used for an abstract ontology? 
> 
> (OGC/ISO mostly used UML for the abstract spec, and various XML/JSON/DDL specs for implementations.) 
> 
> Simon 
> 
> From: kjano [mailto:notifications@github.com] 
> Sent: Friday, 7 June, 2019 03:20 
> To: w3c/sdw <sdw@noreply.github.com> 
> Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com> 
> Subject: Re: [w3c/sdw] New project proposal: OWL Space (#1095) 
> 
> Hi, 
> 
> I am all for these ideas but I have reservations about the name. OGC 
> (and Simon can correct me) has this great distinction between abstract 
> specifications and implementation specifications. I do believe that we 
> need a better and more modern `Space Ontology', and I also believe that 
> we should have an OWL and SHACL implementation of this ontology. 
> 
> Best, 
> Jano 
> 
> 
> On 6/6/19 6:03 AM, Nicholas Car wrote: 
> > 
> > I have just presented on the Australian spatial Linked Data 
> > infrastructure LocI at the European Semantic Web Conference yesterday 
> > and discussed with a number of attendees possible enhancements to the 
> > GeoSPARQL Ontology which could be picked up in OWL Space. There seems 
> > to be a common set of requirements from at least attendees here, some 
> > of which I’ve placed in my informally presented and open-ended 
> > GeoSPARQL Extensions Ontology: 
> > https://github.com/CSIRO-enviro-informatics/geosparql-ext-ont. I will 
> > soon publish that small ontology, after some additions and a review, 
> > since we need to use it now. 
> > 
> > — 
> > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. 
> > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub 
> > <https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1095?email_source=notifications&email_token=AANMP5R66D6ONTPDWTX77WLPZEDLFA5CNFSM4GDZBJ32YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODXCYN5I#issuecomment-499484405>, 
> > or mute the thread 
> > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AANMP5XXJNAFSE2GH37IKMTPZEDLFANCNFSM4GDZBJ3Q>. 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Krzysztof Janowicz 
> 
> Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara 
> 4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060 
> 
> Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu<mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu> 
> Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/ 
> Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net 
> 
> 
> 
> — 
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. 
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1095?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAEUQL5OFM6TQ3JE6GV23ULPZFBM3A5CNFSM4GDZBJ32YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODXDRZ4I#issuecomment-499588337>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAEUQL2CA7KHBG4HR5QQ6VTPZFBM3ANCNFSM4GDZBJ3Q>. 
> —
> You are receiving this because you commented.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1095?email_source=notifications&email_token=ABGFNBUCK4UT456ODHWIU23PZHHOPA5CNFSM4GDZBJ32YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODXEXSYY#issuecomment-499743075>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABGFNBWHQ4N3NNFAUCWA3ODPZHHOPANCNFSM4GDZBJ3Q>.
> 



-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by lieberjosh
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1095#issuecomment-499748268 using your GitHub account

Received on Friday, 7 June 2019 03:55:18 UTC