W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sparql-12@w3.org > December 2019

Re: geospatial sparql

From: Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 11:28:55 +0000
Message-ID: <CABWJn4Qx1dtK5a7td2Jn-sskg3x0gs0=j4kGYcu5yMb0JmuXOw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joseph Abhayaratna <Joseph.Abhayaratna@psma.com.au>
Cc: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, "public-sparql-12@w3.org" <public-sparql-12@w3.org>
Joseph,Linda, I have just finished reading the white paper and had a scan
at the accompanying documentation on github. Following your observations
it's quite a surprise to learn that not a single major GEO software
provider currently supports the OGC GeoSPARQL standard almost 10 years
after its release. I wasn't an official member of the OGC GeoSPARQL WG but
wasn't the whole point of the effort to help drive adoption with the OGC
work around spatial here? I think that is in itself a reason for some
reflection on the OGC strategy. IIRC it was Oracle that had a major input
in the compilation of the reports/standards, didn't they review the work
and adoption at some point?

Anyway I can assure you there is still is interest in Jena Spatial which
provides GeoSPARQL access methods and now also attempts to satisfy aspects
of the OGC GeoSPARQL specification with the new Apache Jena OGC GeoSPARQL
module.
Where does the discussion around the new effort take place? Is that part of
the "W3C SPATIAL DATA ON THE WEB INTEREST GROUP" or the Geosemantics DWG
mailing list?

Marco

On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 9:59 AM Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com>
wrote:

> interesting observations Joseph, and possibly also the reason why most
> SPARQL vendors tend to implement only a rather small subset of the OCG
> GeoSPARQL specification. Same applies to the Jena project where the
> jenaspatial and the GeoSPARQL module have served 90% of the use cases I am
> aware of that use jenaspatial / GeoSPARQL in production. The new Apache
> Jena OGC GeoSPARQL (vs Jena GeoSPARQL)  module now aims to cover a much
> wider range of the OGC GeoSPARQL specification. As far as I can see there
> wasn't any discussion here on the SPARQL 1.2 list to introduce OGC
> GeoSPARQL to SPARQL 1.2 though. That said taking your points of criticism
> on OGC GeoSPARQL into consideration it might indeed be a good time not to
> include OGC GeoSPARQL in SPARQL 1.2 but to work towards OGC GeoSPARQL 2.0
> (as mentioned in geosemantics-dwg) with a focus on actual use cases and
> implementations. I will take a look at your documentation in the github
> repo next week.
>
> Have great weekend,
> Marco
>
> PS: fyi I used to call it GeoRDQL in 2002 before Andy and the Jena
> team switched to SPARQL from RDQL as the primary query syntax for the Jena
> API some time in 2004.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 7:54 PM Joseph Abhayaratna <
> Joseph.Abhayaratna@psma.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Hi Marco,
>>
>> Thanks for expressing interest in participating in the development of the
>> white paper we’re working on.
>>
>> You’re very welcome to make pull requests against any part of the
>> document.
>>
>> The basic structure of the document is:
>> 1. A quick introduction to semantic and graph technologies. Some of the
>> audience of this document won’t know much about this. If there’s any
>> glaring holes in what we have, please don’t hesitate to fill them.
>> 2. Identification of beneficiaries of representing data using semantic
>> and graph technologies, the benefits they receive, and use cases of
>> production operations that use these. We want to steer clear of theoretical
>> uses, and ground them in things companies are already doing using real
>> examples. There’s already lots of information out there about theoretical
>> or academic use. Indeed, a common criticism of the technologies from
>> detractors is that they are academic, but no one really uses them. We want
>> to dispel that. I assume Jena’s users have all sorts of examples to draw
>> from, so I’m really looking forward to more use cases. We have broad
>> headings to group them under, but you may even have more of these headings
>> to add.
>> 3. The current picture of representing geospatial data using semantic and
>> graph technologies. I’ve started this by copying the requirements of
>> geosparql and using it as a starting point. You might want to add something
>> here about the additional extensions you already support in Jena.
>> 4. Finally, what’s required to achieve the vision of representing
>> geospatial data using semantic and graph technologies. I’ve copied the
>> existing change requests for geosparql into this section as a starting
>> point. You might like to add rationale for building additional extensions
>> for geosparql if they aren’t already covered by what’s there.
>>
>> As you can you, there’s a lot you can contribute. And you can probably
>> guess I’m keen to do whatever I can to help that contribution be as smooth
>> as possible. Do t hesitate to sing out if there’s anything I can do to help.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jo
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> Joseph Abhayaratna​
>> Chief Technical Officer
>> ________________________________________
>> PSMA Australia Ltd
>> Unit 6, 113 Canberra Avenue
>> Griffith
>> *ACT* <https://signatures.au1.exclaimer.net/%7BState%7D>
>> 2603
>> *(02) 6260 9042* <(02)%206260%209042>
>> Joseph.Abhayaratna@psma.com.au
>> *www.psma.com.au* <http://www.psma.com.au/> |
>> *www.geoscape.com.au* <http://www.geoscape.com.au/>
>> <https://twitter.com/PSMA>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/psma-australia>
>> <https://geoscape.com.au/request-a-quote/>
>> This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential
>> and is the property of PSMA Australia. It is intended only for the person
>> to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not
>> authorised to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use
>> this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error,
>> please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this
>> message.  All outgoing emails and attached files are virus scanned, but we
>> do not represent that this email and any attached files are free from
>> computer viruses or other defects. Further, we do not accept any liability
>> for any damage caused by this email or attachments. ABN 23 089 912 710
>> On 28 Nov 2019, at 11:48 pm, Linda van den Brink <
>> l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Hi Marco,
>>
>> We are very interested in hearing about existing implementations and
>> hearing about Jena would be very welcome!
>>
>> There is already one mention of a Jena GeoSPARQL extension in our doc,
>> but it might very well be a different one from the work you are indicating.
>>
>> It would be great if you could take a look at our work in progress, which
>> is open on Github: https://github.com/opengeospatial/geosemantics-dwg
>>
>> You are very welcome to explore what’s there and to contribute directly
>> (by adding issues or doing pull requests) if you can.
>>
>> Joseph (in cc) is leading on this work.
>>
>> Linda
>>
>>
>> On 27 Nov 2019, at 14:05, Marco Neumann <marco.neumann@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Hi Linda,
>>
>> thanks for checking in. I am the creator of the first GeoSPARQL
>> implementation for Jena which predates the OGC GeoSPARQL by a couple of
>> years. FYI the Jena project now aims to support and extend OGC GeoSPARQL
>> with the http://jena.apache.org/documentation/geosparql/ implementation.
>>
>> I would be very interested to have you include the Jena GeoSPARQL
>> implementation in your evaluation.
>>
>> Best,
>> Marco
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 12:30 PM Linda van den Brink <
>> l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I wanted to point out that in the geospatial community, there is a
>>> standardized extension of SPARQL, called GeoSPARQL (a standard by the Open
>>> Geospatial Consortium (OGC)).  I’m part of a coordinated effort at OGC to
>>> gather change requests for this standard and to bundle this in a document
>>> explaining the benefits of representing geospatial data using semantics and
>>> graph technologies, and subsequently outlining some shortcomings of the
>>> existing GeoSPARQL implementation specification that, if addressed, would
>>> unlock its potential to a greater extent.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I do not know if geospatial requirements for SPARQL have at all been
>>> considered within the SPARQL 1.2 community group. If this is of interest,
>>> I’m happy to provide a bridge between this group and the GeoSemantics group
>>> at OGC.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Linda van den Brink
>>>
>>> Chair Spatial Data on the Web Interest Group (W3C)
>>>
>>> Chair GeoSemantics DWG (OGC)
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Marco Neumann
>> KONA
>>
>>
>
> --
>
>
> ---
> Marco Neumann
> KONA
>
>

-- 


---
Marco Neumann
KONA
Received on Monday, 2 December 2019 11:31:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:26:46 UTC