RE: Telecon agenda 19 March

Hi Josh,

 

Apologies for missing the last few telecoms but I've been on leave. 

 

You asked:

 

Next steps - discussion of further work items

 

Question: is it valuable to proceed with the basic ontologies outlined
in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/geo/Wiki/Spatial_Ontologies which
might then become the concern of an Interest Group

 

"or" 

 

would it be more valuable to get started on a geospatial "dialect" like
GeoSWRL (thanks to Dave Kolas and Mike Dean) which could become a W3C
Recommendation and concern of a Working Group?

 

I'm not sure if you reached any conclusions, but my feeling would be to
progress with the ontologies and look at what OWL DL and OWL1.1 can
offer us (at least for now). I'm not quite sure how work is progressing
on rules and how they will relate to OWL. I got the impression that SWRL
was unlikely to become a standard for a while (anyone else know?). From
my understanding no one really understands the semantics of SWRL yet. It
might be worth us looking at DL safe rules as a few tools (Pellet,
KAON2) have implemented those already. 

 

I did start writing an ontology for RCC8 relations. Perhaps as I get
time I can finish and OWL DL and OWL 1.1 version and put it on the Wiki.


 

John

 

Dr John Goodwin

Research Scientist

Research Labs, Ordnance Survey 

Room C530, Romsey Road, SOUTHAMPTON, United Kingdom, SO16 4GU 

Phone: +44 (0) 23 8030 5756 | Mobile: +44 (0) 7xxx xxxxxx | Fax: +44 (0)
23 8030 5072 

www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk | john.goodwin@ordnancesurvey.co.uk 

Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this
email.

 

.

________________________________

From: member-xg-geo-request@w3.org [mailto:member-xg-geo-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Joshua Lieberman
Sent: 19 March 2007 14:16
To: GeoXG GeoXG; GeoXG GeoXG
Subject: Telecon agenda 19 March

 

Hi,

 

For today's call,

 

Review and comments on neogeo vocabulary. Is it complete? Is it correct?
What shall we do with it? Is there material from the GeoQualifier
proposal which should be incorporated?

 

Next steps - discussion of further work items

 

Question: is it valuable to proceed with the basic ontologies outlined
in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/geo/Wiki/Spatial_Ontologies which
might then become the concern of an Interest Group

 

"or" 

 

would it be more valuable to get started on a geospatial "dialect" like
GeoSWRL (thanks to Dave Kolas and Mike Dean) which could become a W3C
Recommendation and concern of a Working Group?

 

See you then.

 

Josh Lieberman

Geospatial XG Coordinator

 

Principal, Traverse Technologies Inc.

mailto:jlieberman@traversetechnologies.com

tel +1 (617) 395-7766

fax: +1 (815) 717-981





 


.


This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person.

Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve the right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Ordnance Survey
Romsey Road
Southampton SO16 4GU
Tel: 08456 050505
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk