Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Geocoding Vocabulary #537

Draft
wants to merge 13 commits into
base: geosparql-1.3
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Geocoding Vocabulary #537

wants to merge 13 commits into from

Conversation

situx
Copy link
Collaborator

@situx situx commented Jul 16, 2024

Closes #444

This pull request collects URIs and classes for Geocoding Systems which should be registered at the OGC Naming Authority.

The URIs defined in this vocabulary should eventually after review by OGC be used in GeoCode Literals.

@situx situx changed the base branch from master to geosparql-1.3 July 16, 2024 15:18
@situx situx linked an issue Jul 16, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
@nicholascar
Copy link
Collaborator

nicholascar commented Aug 4, 2024

Can this vocabulary be:

  • proposed not as a class hierarchy but a SKOS ConceptScheme
    • like other GeoSPARQL support vocabs with appropriate metadata
    • with Concepts dual classed as rdfs:Datatype objects also
    • using GeoCode as the parent with others all skos:narrower
  • in longturtle RDF format
  • use schema:citation instead of rdfs:isDefinedBy as the targets are non-RDF nodes
  • provide at least a single-line description for each one
  • using Register Ontology Status Codes for the ConceptScheme and each Concept

I'm listing all these points to see if you all agree to them but I'm not suggesting you (@situx) have to do them all yourself! You've already done the main work here, so I'm happy to do many of these, if you agree to them

@situx
Copy link
Collaborator Author

situx commented Aug 5, 2024

Hi Nick,

I agree with all of your points. I only have a question concerning the SKOS decision:

  • What would be the benefit in defining it as as SKOS concept hierarchy? The ability to define it also as rdf:Datatype? Or does it integrate better with OGC Rainbow? I am asking since we also did not define the Simple Features vocab as SKOS and we would also not define the CRS ontology as such.

<http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#altLabel> "Plus Code"@en .


### http://opengis.net/ont/geocode/#What3Words
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Don't use "slash and hash" in the URL. Use only slash (better than hash because this is a big collection of resources)

@@ -6,8 +6,9 @@ PREFIX skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#>
PREFIX xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#>

<http://opengis.net/ont/geocode/>
a owl:Ontology ;
a owl:Ontology, skos:ConceptScheme ;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

if it has no members that are skos:Concept and point to it using skos:inScheme,
then it's not a ConceptScheme

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Geocoding Support in GeoSPARQL
4 participants