Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
SoA Survey
Contents
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Definitions
- 3 Abbreviations
- 4 Existing standards
- 4.1 [Standard name]
- 4.1.1 Overview
- 4.1.2 Base technologies
- 4.1.3 Capabilities
- 4.1.3.1 Representation of place names
- 4.1.3.2 Representation of coordinate geometries and spatial/coordinate reference systems
- 4.1.3.3 Representation of addresses
- 4.1.3.4 Representations of spatial relationships
- 4.1.3.5 Relationships to other encodings / vocabularies
- 4.1.3.6 Example
- 4.1.3.7 Example applications / use cases
- 4.1 [Standard name]
- 5 Comparison
- 6 References
Introduction
Scope
- review the existing efforts to standardize vocabularies/encodings for providing a geospatial reference for resources, e.g. through coordinate geometries, addresses or geographical names
- 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:
- W3C lat/lon
- GeoSparql
- Dublin Core (dcterms:Location, dcterms:Point, dcterms:Box)
- schema.org
- http://schema.org/GeoShape @@@Boris
- http://schema.org/GeoCoordinates @@@Boris
- FAO geopolitical ontology
- neogeo
- geonames.org
- dbpedia
- Location CV
- GeoWordNet/Space ontology
Other candidate vocabularies from:
- http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/details/vocabularySpace_Geometry.html
- http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/details/vocabularySpace_Geography.html
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
| 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
| 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
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disjoint | ||||||||
| Touches | ||||||||
| Within | ||||||||
| Overlaps | ||||||||
| Crosses | ||||||||
| Intersects | ||||||||
| Contains | ||||||||
| Relate |
References
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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