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

Consider adding geospatial relations echoing the predicates from DE-9IM #1375

Closed
danbri opened this issue Sep 19, 2016 · 9 comments
Closed

Consider adding geospatial relations echoing the predicates from DE-9IM #1375

danbri opened this issue Sep 19, 2016 · 9 comments

Comments

@danbri
Copy link
Contributor

@danbri danbri commented Sep 19, 2016

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DE-9IM has a list of topological relationship types between 2d-geometrically described places
    • "The Dimensionally Extended nine-Intersection Model (DE-9IM) is a topological model and a standard used to describe the spatial relations of two regions (two geometries in two-dimensions, R2), in Geometry, Point-set topology, Geospatial topology, and fields related to computer spatial analysis. "
  • http://schema.org/GeoShape is the closest schema.org currently gets to having a type for geo-spatial geometry.

It would be useful (as discussed 2016-09-19) at W3C/OGC Spatial Data on the Web WG meeting in Lisbon if these could be used within schema.org.

@danbri
Copy link
Contributor Author

@danbri danbri commented Sep 19, 2016

Suggest:

* geospatiallyEquals
* geospatiallyDisjoint
* geospatiallyTouches
* geospatiallyContains
* geospatiallyCovers
* geospatiallyIntersects
* geospatiallyWithin
* geospatiallyCoveredBy 
* geospatiallyCrosses 
* geospatiallyOverlaps

with text based on Wikipedia's summaries, and allowing each to link either geometries or places.

@danbri
Copy link
Contributor Author

@danbri danbri commented Sep 19, 2016

Ok I have made a FIRST CUT with DELIBERATE MISTAKES for discussion in Schema.org and W3C circles.

Further things to consider:

  • I included a GeospatialGeometry definition to avoid editing the existing deployed GeoShape (which could become a subtype)
  • It tries to make these relations applicable both at the geometry and at the place level. Of all the relations, "equals" is the hardest to consider without concrete geometry.
  • Text is based heavily on Wikipedia, no proper citation to underlying standards yet.
  • We haven't got inverseOf relations or subPropertyOf relations yet (although schema.org understands these). Also we don't have "symmetric property" in schema.org's meta model yet, although that could be useful here.
  • It was suggested that similar temporal relations could be added (see Working Draft)
@danbri
Copy link
Contributor Author

@danbri danbri commented Sep 19, 2016

@rvguha
Copy link
Contributor

@rvguha rvguha commented Sep 19, 2016

Who is this vocab targeted at? Who will mark things up and who will use it?

guha

@danbri
Copy link
Contributor Author

@danbri danbri commented Sep 19, 2016

It's part of an effort to get existing professional geospatial systems to expose modern Web-based views rather than just GIS-specific standards. Those tools support such relations out of the box. (stopgap reply for now, typing on a phone)

@thadguidry
Copy link
Contributor

@thadguidry thadguidry commented Sep 19, 2016

@rvguha
Copy link
Contributor

@rvguha rvguha commented Sep 19, 2016

Ok, sounds like a good idea.

guha

@danbri
Copy link
Contributor Author

@danbri danbri commented Feb 19, 2019

I have heard rumour of an application that may use this. In the meantime the names are needlessly verbose, let's just write them as 'geoXyz' instead of 'geospatiallyXyz'. I'll make that fix directly, and do not plan to preserve a history for the old property names unless someone speaks up here and says they're important.

@RichardWallis
Copy link
Contributor

@RichardWallis RichardWallis commented Apr 10, 2019

Implemented in release 3.5

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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
4 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.