Dear Gerald,
Thank you very much for your comment! How would you link GeoSPARQL into
CRM RDFS? Would it make sense then to recommend GeoSPARQL as THE form to
encode geometry expressions?
By the way,
the meaning of "p7_took_place_at [ a E53_Place ;" is the actual place
of the event OR any wider one.
So, "Rangiora, the town" is a good range here, as well as the actual
place of birth.
If we want to refer to the phenomenal place itself only, we would use
the spatial projection
"P161 has spatial projection (is spatial projection of)".
Best,
Martin
On 8/6/2018 1:56 PM, Hiebel, Gerald wrote:
Dear Martin, Rob and All,
Thanks very much for elaborating on the issues related to Space
Primitives.
I would like to add/emphasis some off the points Rob and Martin made:
*Properties and Provenance of Declarative Places:*
I believe Martins approach to relate these relations to the E53 Place
(defined by (P168) an E94) and not the E94 is a good choice as the
recording of the Properties and Provenance of Declarative Places
becomes increasingly important when having multiple geometries (coming
from multiple sources and thus multiple methods to create the
geometry) that approximate one phenomenal place.
For different applications and reasonings I need to know more about
the declarative place (Geometry) and its provenance and type.
An example: Right now I am working on the integration of several
different Gazetteers and I need to record the provenance and type of
the geometry in order to make a decision which geometry to use as
preferred or for a specific purpose.
*Formats of serialisation:*
One goal of CRMgeo was to relate CIDOC CRM to OGC GeoSPARQL and thus
make use of the developments and standards of OGC. In OGC
GeoSPARQL one goal for further work was to enhance the specific
serialisation formats, explicitly stating
KML and GeoJson. Unfortunately GeoSPARQL did not evolve quickly,
although it is still discussed
(https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Further_development_of_GeoSPARQL)
and serialisation is a major issue.
Nevertheless GeoSPARQL offers a general property
GeoSPARQL:#hasSerialization that allows for encoding in serialisations
different to WKT or GML. The type of the encoding would then probably
needed to be stated in a P2_has_type of the E53.
Another option may be to create specific subproperties of
GeoSPARQL:#hasSerialization in a new version of CRMgeo.
(please comment)
*Relationships between geometries:*
When geometries are treated as declarative Places and in CRMcore as
E53 the spatial relationships of CRM are available.
Through the linking to GeoSPARQL the topological relations of
GeoSPARQL are available as well.
In the paper "CRMgeo: A spatiotemporal extension of CIDOC-CRM"
(attached,
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00799-016-0192-4) we
provided some graphics showing the relations of CRMgeo and GeoSPARQL
and in figure 4 and 5 you see that the topological properties of
GeoSPARQL are available CRM Places if you need richer topological
relations.
A comment on the example of Rob:
_:rob a E21_Person ;
rdfs:label “Rob” ;
p98i_was_born [
a E67_Birth ;
p7_took_place_at [
a E53_Place ;
rdfs:label “Rangiora” ;
q11i_approximated_by [
a SP6_Declarative_Place ;
p2_has_type <xxx:Geospatial_Bounding_Box> ;
rdfs:label “Bounding Box for Rangiora” ;
P168_place_is_defined_by “POLYGON((172.565456 -43.285409, 172.622116
-43.285409, 172.622116 -43.323697, 172.565456 -43.323697, 172.565456
-43.285409))”
]
]
] .
And further SP6s could be introduced for other approximations, such as
centroids, points, exact boundaries, different coordinate systems, etc.
I had interpreted the footnote that SP6 would also be collapsed into
Place, which I understand not to be the case now.
Given that I was only born at one location, the E53 provides the
unique reference, and SP6 provides the ability to have different
approximations of that location. If only one approximation was
needed, then E53 and SP6 could be collapsed, as SP6 is a subclass of
E53. (Though that doesn’t seem like a good idea…)
*E53 provides the unique reference:*
I would interpret the E53_Place in the example as Rangiora the town
and not the spatial projection(P161) of the spacetime volume(E92) of
the birth event (E67), which is a much smaller place and unique.
The birth place and Rangiora are two distinctive places with the
topological relation that one falls within the other.
Best,
Gerald
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email: [email protected] |
|
Center for Cultural Informatics |
Information Systems Laboratory |
Institute of Computer Science |
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) |
|
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, |
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
|
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
--------------------------------------------------------------
