Re: Metadata: bounding boxes

Thanks Josh

that looks sensible - and is more explicit than the POLYGON WKT examples.

what is the canonical ogeo namespace and what status does it have?

Is the ^^xsd:string datatype required, and useful?

And, are we going to use this consistently in all the SDW outputs?

rob

On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 at 14:21 Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
wrote:

> Use georss simple — <georss:box>42.943 -71.032 43.039 -69.856</georss:box>
> which is equivalent to
>
> *<georss:where>*
>
>
> *<gml:Envelope>
>          <gml:lowerCorner>42.943 -71.032</gml:lowerCorner>         <gml:upperCorner>43.039 -69.856</gml:upperCorner>      </gml:Envelope>
> </georss:where>*
>
> and is the same in ogeo (core geosparql2)
>
> ogeo:box  “”"42.943, -71.032, 43.039, -69.856”””^^xsd:string
>
> —Josh
>
> On Feb 20, 2017, at 9:57 PM, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> trying to deal with an open issue re BP, in an example in QB4ST
>
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/132
>
> been reviewing practices, including BP, w.r.t. defining an bounding
> spatial envelope
>
> BP points to geoDCAT - which is kind of loose on the subject:
> https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/node/141755
>
> but the issue does suggest:
> *The provisional proposal is to represent the geometry as a GML literal
> (gml:Envelope), as specified in [GEOSPARQL
> <http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/geosparql>]. However, this is an
> issue that requires further investigation, both in the framework of the
> INSPIRE MIG and in relevant standardisation activities.*
>
> the only example in the  BP document uses schema.org "box"
>
> for all these microformats, then using rules to entail equivalent
> alternative forms from a given choice is going to be ugly...
>
> NB My own preference is for ttl not json-ld in examples - its far easier
> to read, and i think JSON-LD is unlikely to be easily readable by either
> JSON or RDF communities - maybe a ttl equivalent should be provided for
> each example- which would reinforce the message that using RDF data model
> makes sense even if you want to pass data around using json serialisation.
>
> Rob A
>
>
>
>