How do we ensure alignment with the terminology being used in the 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.

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.

We can't do the alignment at this moment because the spatial ontology will not be finished before the BP.

Will put a green note about this new spatial ontology into the new appendix and ask Josh to write that note.

Suggest that this 'note' about the new spatial ontology is added to the new Appendix being developed by @andrea-perego and @BillSwirrl - see their action in the detailed plan for further details.

@lieberjosh - can you help with this?