Re: geo ontology

From: Richard Newman <>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 15:18:57 -0700

There are loads and loads of ontologies for place.

I refer to at least 5 in <>, so
you can check the namespaces and see which fit.


On 3 Aug 2005, at 15:04, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

> Been playing with the new frbr ontology and representing subjects/
> topics. To wit, I went looking for an ontology I could use to
> represent place (I'm a geographer, so no surprise!), and found one
> from SIMILE!
> I have a few minor comments/questions:


>> geo:site
>> a rdf:Property ;
>> rdfs:label "site/city"_at_en ;
>> rdfs:comment "the site/city that includes the place"_at_en ;
> A site can be a point on the ground. Why not "city" (also?)?
> A broader question that may reflect my ignorance of RDF: why are
> these properties and not classes (e.g. subclasses of Place)?

Because you use the province property to point to the province that
includes the subject, and the site property to point to the site that
includes the subject.

If they were classes, they'd be Capitalised. Presumably Province,
Site, etc., are all subclasses of Place.

Received on Wed Aug 03 2005 - 22:15:37 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Aug 09 2012 - 16:39:18 EDT