Setting a high bar there, Jeremy ("clear and unambiguous” ). I’ve documented the entities in the draft ontology to a certain extent so far, but more can be done. The terminology is generally consistent with ISO and OGC usage as well as conceptual models, which I believe we’ve kept an eye on for the BP, so it shouldn’t be a huge alignment issue. More direct imports, e.g. for QB4S, will require more work, but carry benefits of consistency and reuse.

Josh

On Sep 27, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Jeremy Tandy [email protected] wrote:

How do we ensure alignment with the terminology being used in the further development of GeoSPARQL https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Further_development_of_GeoSPARQL? We expect a new spatial ontology to be published which will contain clear and unambiguous definitions for the terms used therein.

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub #382, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AExWhlW_5XTLCEyeckIgPnaFt6WqP3uPks5quTp3gaJpZM4KH1Pv.