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

Hi all,

I have just added Nick's and Josh's ideas for improvement of GeoSPARQL to the list of prior art in the top message of this thread.

As for the name: at this point I think a name like 'OWL Space' should be considered no more than a placeholder label.  However, I do think it is important for the ontology to be about space and not only geography. Having 'space' or 'spatial' in the name should help to make that clear.

Separating abstract and implementation specifications seems like a very good idea to me. An abstract specification is the thing that is really needed. And if it's is any good (clear, simple, modular, ...) it should be possible for anyone to come up with interoperable implementation specifications.

As for notation: I agree that the main effort should be to arrive at a clear model/knowledge representation, irrespective of notation. It is likely that the skeleton of the model will consist of related classes and properties, which can be done in either OWL or UML. That way of modelling knowledge has been popular at least since Aristotle. It will probable last for some time yet, while OWL and UML may turn out to be short-lived fads. Developing OWL and UML simultaneously could be an option and might even be a way to improve quality? I also agree that any translation between notations should not be done robotically.

Aside from OWL or UML, my gut feeling is that mathematics should be a main language in this model. Fortunately, maths is universal and chances are high that it will also stand the test of time.

A further consideration: one thing I really like about having at least a model in RDFS/OWL is that all definitions will have deferenceable and linkable URI's. That should help users and implementers a lot.

Greetings,
Frans

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by Fransie
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1095#issuecomment-500126542 using your GitHub account

Received on Saturday, 8 June 2019 14:02:17 UTC