[tdwg-content] Proposal to Add a GeoSpatial "Area" to the DarwinCore
Peter DeVries
pete.devries at gmail.com
Sun Nov 21 23:44:10 CET 2010
I noticed a small bug that is fixed in the RDF and should show up on the
cloud but I will need to clean up my own endpoint later tonight.
This mean the queries will not work while this is being reloaded.
I will do this at 12:00 am CST, should be back up by 1:00am CST.
This issue is that the triplestore still has this predicate.
txn:areaWithInFeature
in addition to
dwc_area:areaWithInFeature
- Pete
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Peter DeVries <pete.devries at gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi Steve and Markus,
>
> There are several levels to this so I will start with the advantages of the
> geo vocabulary.
>
> What I am proposing is that we add this so people can use it if they want
> to but it would not be required.
>
> Part 1: The geo vocabulary
>
> The geo vocabulary is a widely understood standard that is supported by
> many tools.
>
> http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/
>
> If allows tools to properly interpret and map records as demonstrated by
> these SPARQL Query.
>
> PREFIX txn: <http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/txn.owl#>
> PREFIX boloria_selene: <http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/ICmLC#Species>
>
> DESCRIBE ?x WHERE {
> ?x txn:occurrenceHasSpeciesConcept boloria_selene:.
> }
>
> http://bit.ly/ambJHX
> ==
>
> PREFIX txn: <http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/txn.owl#>
> PREFIX boloria_selene: <http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/ICmLC#Species>
>
> DESCRIBE ?x WHERE {
> ?x txn:areaHasObservedSpeciesConcept boloria_selene:.
> }
> http://bit.ly/bZwkRD
>
> I am having some issues with my queries going directly to a pretty map but
> you should be able to tweek the queries above to give you something like the
> screen shot that is attached to this email.
>
> Part 2
>
> Extending the geo vocabulary with a radius using a ietf.org proposed
> standard.
>
> The main problem with it is that it does not directly support an extent /
> radius / pointRadiusSpatialFit measure.
>
> What I did in this example is that I extended the geo vocabulary to it
> included a radius measure, using the proposed ietf standard listed below
>
> So it is no longer a Point but an "Area" - Which is an instance of the
> "Location" described by Markus.
>
> Here is an example with some of the non-relevant stuff taken out.
>
> <dwc_area:Area rdf:about="geo:44.86528100,-87.23147800;u=10">
> <dcterms:title>44.86528100, -87.23147800 Radius 10 meters</dcterms:title>
> <dcterms:identifier>geo:44.86528100,-87.23147800;u=10</dcterms:identifier>
> <dcterms:created>2010-10-28T00:00:00-0500</dcterms:created>
> <dcterms:modified>2010-11-19T22:17:37-0600</dcterms:modified>
> <geo:lat>44.86528100</geo:lat>
> <geo:long>-87.23147800</geo:long>
> <dwc_area:radius>10</dwc_area:radius>
> <dwc_area:areaWithInFeature rdf:resource="
> http://sws.geonames.org/5250768/"/>
> <wdrs:describedBy rdf:resource="
> http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/f522444a-2dd9-400e-be59-47213ef38cb9.rdf
> "/>
> </dwc_area:Area>
>
> What I have done with my examples is standardized on a fixed precision to
> the lat and log.
>
> The level of precision does not have be this high, we just need to have an
> agreed on level of precision.
> (Probably something that we should do anyway since the actual precision
> should not be inferred by the significant digits.)
>
> So Steve's 44.86,-87.23 => 44.86000000, -87.23000000.
>
> Now we have a standard urn-like entity for an area that follows the
> proposed ietf standard.
>
> Other data like soil type, weather etc can be tied to these areas.
>
> Area1 => hasDegreeDayValue "2105"
>
> Other areas can be related to this area Area1 within Area2, AreaB near
> AreaC etc.
>
> AreaZ within NaturePreserveB
>
> Also the following was recently proposed by the ietf.org
>
> *A Uniform Resource Identifier for Geographic Locations* ('geo' URI)
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5870 (from Sean Gillies)
> * Not clear that all the systems understand this but URIburner and Virtuoso
> interprets these as a URN type thing so they work but are not understood in
> the way that the "geo" vocabulary is understood. Note that if and when this
> becomes a standard it will allow these "Areas" to be universally understood.
>
> What this means is that I can markup my 10,0000 mosquito records from one
> location with one URN type id.
> *
> *
> In summary, these allow more efficient occurrence records that leverage the
> existing support for the geo vocabulary and the probably support for the
> ietf.org standard.
>
> I have added some predicate to the vocabulary that allow inferencing from
> the area through the geonames hierarchy.
>
> This would allow one to infer the following about the record above.
>
> Area >* *areaWithInFeature => Door County => Wisconsin => United States =>
> North America = Earth
>
> This does not mean that additions could also be made that allow inferencing
> up some other non-geonames hierarchy.
>
> Here is the ontology http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/dwc_area.owl
> Here is the owl doc
> http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/dwc_area_doc/index.html
>
> Here is an example of an occurrence record that uses this:
>
> HTML
> http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/f522444a-2dd9-400e-be59-47213ef38cb9.html
> RDF
> http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/f522444a-2dd9-400e-be59-47213ef38cb9.rdf
>
> Respectfully,
>
> - Pete
>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Steve Baskauf <
> steve.baskauf at vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
>
>> Pete,
>> I was going to ask questions about this the first time you mentioned it,
>> but got distracted. I guess the main question I have is: what you would
>> "do" with it? I guess it could be considered an identifier for a spot on
>> the earth, but based on what I've read about guids it's considered to be a
>> "no-no" to try to infer stuff about a resource by looking at the form of the
>> identifier. Rather one should look at the metadata associated with the
>> identifier to understand things about the identifier (which you provide with
>> geo:lat and geo:long). I suppose that one could consider this to be some
>> kind of identifier that could be reused, but particularly since the
>> precision of your lat and long are 8 digits, it is highly unlikely that
>> anybody besides you is ever going to choose to use this identifier over (vs.
>> 44.86,-87.23 which would be imprecise enough to include a lot of places to
>> which people might want to refer). I may just be misunderstanding the
>> purpose you intend.
>>
>> The other question is a more general one. Do we need more ways to specify
>> uncertainty in location than we already have? We already have
>> dwc:coordinateUncertaintyInMeters and dwc:coordinatePrecision . I've been
>> using dwc:coordinateUncertaintyInMeters with a seat-of-the pants estimate on
>> my part about how accurate I think my geolocation is (expressed in meters).
>> That may be a misuse of this term because I'm really thinking radius around
>> a point rather than uncertainty of coordinates. But as a practical matter,
>> if I think my estimate of location is good to 1000 m (vs. 100 m or 10000 m)
>> does it really matter if I'm talking about a square or a circle? In any
>> case, I'm saying, this lat/long could be off from the actual location by a
>> km. If I had a GPS receiver that allowed me to download the actual
>> estimated accuracy (based on satellite signals and whatever else), then I
>> would populate dwc:coordinateUncertaintyInMeters with that, but mine crummy
>> old one doesn't. To me the most important thing is for users to know
>> whether this is a ballpark estimate or if they could expect to actually be
>> able to walk up to the tree using the coordinates they give.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>> Peter DeVries wrote:
>>
>> I wrote about this earlier but I never heard anything back.
>>
>> I have made something that uses the geo vocabulary but also allows
>> pointRadiusSpatial fit measure that I call radius.
>>
>> The advantage is that this adds a standard way to deal use something
>> like an extent or pointRadiusSpatial while still benefiting from the widely
>> used geo vocabulary.
>>
>> It also allows these "Areas" to be referenced in a commonly understood
>> urn way that using a ietf standard.
>>
>> For example: "geo:44.86528100,-87.23147800;u=10"
>>
>> There are still some things I need to fix and check with this vocabulary
>> but I am wondering if there is any interest in incorporating this into the
>> DarwinCore.
>>
>> If not I will probably change the name of the ontology.
>>
>> There are also things in the example below that are not part of my
>> proposal.
>>
>> I have what I call "Areas" that look like this:
>>
>> <dwc_area:Area rdf:about="geo:44.86528100,-87.23147800;u=10">
>> <dcterms:title>44.86528100, -87.23147800 Radius 10
>> meters</dcterms:title>
>> <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="
>> http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/void#this"/>
>>
>> <dcterms:identifier>geo:44.86528100,-87.23147800;u=10</dcterms:identifier>
>> <dcterms:created>2010-10-28T00:00:00-0500</dcterms:created>
>> <dcterms:modified>2010-11-09T16:33:34-0600</dcterms:modified>
>> <geo:lat>44.86528100</geo:lat>
>> <geo:long>-87.23147800</geo:long>
>> <dwc_area:radius>10</dwc_area:radius>
>> <txn:elevation>186.54</txn:elevation>
>> <txn:continent>North America</txn:continent>
>> <txn:countryCode>US</txn:countryCode>
>> <txn:country>United States</txn:country>
>> <txn:stateProvince>Wisconsin</txn:stateProvince>
>> <txn:county>Door</txn:county>
>> <txn:localityText>Town of Sevastopol</txn:localityText>
>> <txn:locationName>Shivering Sands Natural Area
>> Woods</txn:locationName>
>> <txn:areaHasOccurrence rdf:resource="
>> http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/f522444a-2dd9-400e-be59-47213ef38cb9#Occurrence
>> "/>
>> <txn:areaHasObservedSpeciesConcept rdf:resource="
>> http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/ICmLC#Species"/>
>> <txn:areaHasIndividual rdf:resource="
>> http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/f522444a-2dd9-400e-be59-47213ef38cb9#Individual
>> "/>
>> <txn:areaInStateProvince rdf:resource="
>> http://sws.geonames.org/5279468/"/>
>> <txn:areaInCounty rdf:resource="http://sws.geonames.org/5250768/"/>
>> <wdrs:describedBy rdf:resource="
>> http://ocs.taxonconcept.org/ocs/f522444a-2dd9-400e-be59-47213ef38cb9.rdf
>> "/>
>> </dwc_area:Area>
>>
>> I recently added the following predicates, but have not altered my RDF
>> examples.
>>
>> #featureContainsArea
>> #areaWithInFeature
>>
>> http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/dwc_area.owl
>>
>> OWL Doc http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/dwc_area_doc/index.html
>>
>> The predicates are a bit awkward, but I wanted to be clear that this was
>> to link an "Area" like "geo:44.86528100,-87.23147800;u=10" to a Geonames
>> "Feature".
>>
>> I thought a different set of predicates could be created to deal with
>> some other class of "SpatialThing" if needed.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>>
>> - Pete
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> Pete DeVries
>> Department of Entomology
>> University of Wisconsin - Madison
>> 445 Russell Laboratories
>> 1630 Linden Drive
>> Madison, WI 53706
>> TaxonConcept Knowledge Base <http://www.taxonconcept.org/> / GeoSpecies
>> Knowledge Base <http://lod.geospecies.org/>
>> About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base <http://about.geospecies.org/>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> --
>> Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer
>> Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
>>
>> postal mail address:
>> VU Station B 351634
>> Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
>>
>> delivery address:
>> 2125 Stevenson Center
>> 1161 21st Ave., S.
>> Nashville, TN 37235
>>
>> office: 2128 Stevenson Center
>> phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 343-6707http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Pete DeVries
> Department of Entomology
> University of Wisconsin - Madison
> 445 Russell Laboratories
> 1630 Linden Drive
> Madison, WI 53706
> TaxonConcept Knowledge Base <http://www.taxonconcept.org/> / GeoSpecies
> Knowledge Base <http://lod.geospecies.org/>
> About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base <http://about.geospecies.org/>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pete DeVries
Department of Entomology
University of Wisconsin - Madison
445 Russell Laboratories
1630 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706
TaxonConcept Knowledge Base <http://www.taxonconcept.org/> / GeoSpecies
Knowledge Base <http://lod.geospecies.org/>
About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base <http://about.geospecies.org/>
------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20101121/72e0c01c/attachment.html
More information about the tdwg-content
mailing list