I would like to go with the ohm:uri:same_as and a ohm:uri:is_instance_of, the idea it self is based on the idea that a mapper or end user will never see a format such as RDF or JSONLD.
Your first example would be a is_instance_of. As I wrote earlier we should support RDF/other formats, but not by force the mapper to use them, ohm:uri:same_as would be equal to owl:sameAs(I think(but has to look into it)) so developers would be translating the tagging to RDF based on a schema we should provide. Then by creating some middleman software and a basic API we could provide RDF/JSONLD/... output and give developers a easier life. Would take maybe a week of work to create such a API. So short story, owl:sameAs has a equal relation tag, that tag just has to be translated. This is done because RDF is not end-user friendly. Try finding a place to enter RDF at Wikidata... // Albin 2015-04-10 22:30 GMT+02:00 Rob H Warren <[email protected]>: > Albin, > > owl:sameAs would allow us to link the object in OHM space to other > databases, such as DB/Wikipedia/WikiData: > > Linking the OHM version of say http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_aqueduct > > Or linking the ww1 trenches within OHM to their Muninn equivalent. > > Or linking greek structures with their pelagios equivalent > http://pelagios-project.blogspot.ca/ > > Or linking modern administrative locations with their geonames,org > location. > > Since a LOD version of OHM will be positioned to be the equivalent to > dbpedia in historical GIS terms, the use of owl:sameAs would enable people > to discover non-OHM resources since it is the most obvious LOD data set to > link to. > > -rhw > > > > On Apr 6, 2015, at 10:58 AM, Albin Larsson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Sorry for the delay answering, I have been busy with other stuff... > > > > About the OGC idea I can't say more then that it would be devastating to > break the existing tools, the existing OHM instances(the rails-fork) is > hard enough to maintain. > > > > Rob could you explain future why owl:sameAs is needed and provide a use > case? I'm not getting the idea... > > > > // > > Albin > > > > > > 2015-04-02 15:55 GMT+02:00 Rob H Warren <[email protected]>: > > Albin, > > > > I'd add owl:sameAs integration to the list of tags so that we can use > OHM as a resource discovery mechanism. -rhw > > > > > > > On Mar 27, 2015, at 4:12 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 13:57:36 +0100 > > > From: Albin Larsson <[email protected]> > > > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > Subject: [OHM] Linked Data > > > Message-ID: > > > <CAM-QGEmn+WwHCK4eee24Nn=+rPvxjFdSLqJ5=fqS33m= > [email protected]> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > > > My thoughts on linked data in OpenHistoricalMap and how I do it: > > > > > > > http://abbe98.github.io/blog/2015/03/26/mapping-the-past-with-linked-data-in-openhistoricalmap/ > > > > > > Feedback, ideas, thoughts? > > > > > > // > > > Albin > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Historic mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic
