SoA Survey

From Locations and Addresses Community Group
Jump to: navigation, search

Introduction

Scope

  1. review the existing efforts to standardize vocabularies/encodings for providing a geospatial reference for resources, e.g. through coordinate geometries, addresses or geographical names
  2. assess whether any use cases (in the context of the Semantic Web) would be served by harmonization and/or new standardization work

Out of scope: Harmonization of vocabularies/encodings for describing other aspects of geospatial resources (e.g. classification systems, …)

Background material

To be completed.

Coordinate geometries

  • ISO 19111:2007: Geographic information -- Spatial referencing by coordinates
  • ISO 19111-2:2009 - Geographic information -- Spatial referencing by coordinates -- Part 2: Extension for parametric values
  • ISO 19107:2003 - Geographic information -- Spatial schema
  • EPSG Geodetic Parameter Registry --http://www.epsg-registry.org/ @@@Ghislain

Geographical names

  • ISO 19112:2003: Geographic information -- Spatial referencing by geographic identifiers
  • INSPIRE Data specification on Geographical Names

Addresses

  • UPU Standard S42: International postal address components and templates
  • UPU Standard S53: Exchange of name and address data
  • INSPIRE Data specification on Addresses

Definitions

Vocabulary
Syntax encoding scheme
Resource
Point
Polygon/Surface
Coordinate reference system
Address
Location
Geographical Name / Place name
Coordinate geometry
Spatial relation
…

Abbreviations

TBD

Existing standards

A review of existing standards.

This include (to be completed):

  • Syntax encoding schemes:
    • WKT / WKB
    • GML
    • KML
    • GeoRSS @@@Raj
    • GeoJSON
    • Dublin Core: box and point encoding schemes
    • W3C Point of Interest (POI)
    • placetime.com
    • "geo:" URI scheme
    • geohash.org
  • Vocabularies:

Other candidate vocabularies from:

Tentative template for each standard:

[Standard name]

Overview

Give a short overview of the standard, including a reference to its specification.

Base technologies

e.g. XML (schema), RDF, OWL, …

Capabilities

Representation of place names

Can place names be represented? How?

Representation of coordinate geometries and spatial/coordinate reference systems

Can coordinate geometries be represented? How? Which ones?

  • point
  • line
  • polygon
  • others …
Representation of addresses

Can addresses be represented? How? Which address components are covered?

Representations of spatial relationships

How are relationships between resources and locations / addresses / geometries represented?

Are there any pre-defined spatial relationships between resources?

Are there any pre-defined relationships between locations, addresses and geometries?

Relationships to other encodings / vocabularies
Example

Provide an example of spatial representation of a resource

Example applications / use cases

Provide examples of data sets or applications that use this encoding / vocabulary and/or the use cases on which the development of this encoding / vocabulary was based.

Comparison

Tables incl. table with generalised use cases / application areas

Identify gaps (if any)

Interoperability problems

Provide examples where usage of different encodings / vocabularies leads to problems.

Potentials for harmonization and/or future standardization

This could also include mappings between different encodings / vocabularies.

Comparison of syntax encoding schemes

Supported geometry types
WKT / WKB GML KML GeoJSON SVG geo: Geohash POI
Point Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Curve Yes Yes Yes Yes
Linestring Yes Yes Yes Yes
Surface Yes Yes Yes Yes
Polygon Yes Yes Yes Yes
PolyhedralSurface Yes Yes Yes Yes
GeomCollection Yes Yes Yes Yes
Multipoint Yes Yes Yes Yes
Multicurve Yes Yes Yes Yes
Multilinestring Yes Yes Yes Yes
Multisurface Yes Yes Yes Yes
Multipolygon Yes Yes Yes Yes
Bounding box / Envelope * Yes Yes

Comparison of Vocabularies

Supported syntax encoding schemes
WKT GML KML GeoJSON SVG geo: Geohash POI DCMI Box Semantic representation
Dublin Core Yes
Location CV Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (Yes) (Yes) Yes Yes
GeoSPARQL Yes Yes
FAO
Geonames
W3C Lat/Long
NeoGeo Yes
GeoWordNet/Space Ontology Yes (RDF + WordNet format)


Spatial relations

Supported spatial relations
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Disjoint
Touches
Within
Overlaps
Crosses
Intersects
Contains
Relate


References

  1. Andreas Harth, Juan Salas, Anisa Rula, Boris Villazón-Terrazas, Jasna Škrbec, Carolina Fortuna. Modelling and Processing Contextual Aspects of Data. PlanetData Network of Excellence, Deliverable D2.3, March 2012. http://wiki.planet-data.eu/uploads/4/45/D2.3.pdf
  2. Ghislain Auguste Atemezing, Raphaël Troncy. Comparing Vocabularies for Representing Geographical Features and Their Geometry. In: Terra Cognita 2012 Workshop, pages 3-14. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-901/paper1.pdf
  3. Giunchiglia, F., Maltese, V., Farazi, F., Dutta, B. (2010). GeoWordNet: a Resource for Geo-Spatial Applications. Aroyo et al (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, Vol. 6088, pp 121-136. In the Proceedings of the 7th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC), 2010. http://eprints.biblio.unitn.it/1777/1/071.pdf
  4. Giunchiglia, F., Dutta, B., Maltese, V., Farazi, F., 2012. A facet-based methodology for the construction of a large-scale geospatial ontology. Journal on Data Semantics, 1 (1), pp. 57-73 (DOI: 10.1007/s13740-012-0005-x) http://livingknowledge.europarchive.org/images/publications/techRep479.pdf
  5. M. Koubarakis, M. Karpathiotakis, K. Kyzirakos, C. Nikolaou, and M. Sioutis. Data Models and Query Languages for Linked Geospatial Data. Invited tutorial at the 8th Reasoning Web Summer School 2012 (RW 2012). September 3-8, 2012. Austria, Vienna. In: Eiter, T., Krennwallner, T. (eds.) Reasoning Web. Semantic Technologies for Advanced Query Answering. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7487, pp. 290328. Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33158-9_8
Retrieved from "https://www.w3.org/community/locadd/wiki/index.php?title=SoA_Survey&oldid=52"