The "contains" in GeoSPARQL holds between geometries, not geographic entities, so I don't think it would fit your needs.
You can go with GeoNames. The following query should give you the result on a triple store (try on the FactForge endpoint or on your data once you have it): PREFIX gn:<http://www.geonames.org/ontology#> SELECT ?country (SUM(xsd:integer(?pop)) as ?tot) WHERE { ?province gn:featureCode gn:A.ADM1; gn:parentCountry ?country; gn:population ?pop } GROUP BY ?country ORDER BY DESC(?tot) LIMIT 1 Il giorno 21/feb/2013, alle ore 15:10, Frans Knibbe | Geodan <frans.kni...@geodan.nl> ha scritto: > Barry and Matteo, thank you for pointing me to the GeoNames Ontology. > Geographical containment can also be found in GeoSPARQL > (http://schemas.opengis.net/geosparql/1.0/geosparql_vocab_all.rdf): > sfContains. > > I had the feeling that what I primarily needed was the logical concept of > containment/composition, because that would allow reasoning on the part of > the data consumer. But I guess it would be best to specify both logical AND > geographical containment. As far as I can tell, the geographical containment > in GeoSPARQL and GeoNames does not imply logical containment. But perhaps I > am overestimating the power of dcterms:hasPart? > > I was thinking about an example. Let's say the following is known: > > 1) A country consists of provinces > 2) For each country, the complete set of provinces is available > 3) For each province the number of inhabitants is available > > Could a machine answer the question "Which country has the highest number of > inhabitants?" without help from a human? > > Regards, > Frans > > > > On 21-2-2013 14:10, Matteo Casu wrote: >> You could also check the GeoNames ontology, which considers administrative >> subdivisions: http://www.geonames.org/ontology/documentation.html >> E.G.: in the USA, level 1 administrative subdivisions are States. In Italy, >> they are Regions. >> >> It is a minor change of perspective with respect to yours. >> >> >> Il giorno 21/feb/2013, alle ore 14:01, Frans Knibbe | Geodan >> <frans.kni...@geodan.nl> ha scritto: >> >>> Thank you Martynas, that seems to be just what I was looking for! >>> >>> Frans >>> >>> On 21-2-2013 13:54, Martynas Jusevičius wrote: >>>> Hey Frans, >>>> >>>> Dublin Core Terms has some general properties for this: >>>> dct:hasPart http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-hasPart >>>> dct:isPartOf http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-isPartOf >>>> >>>> Martynas >>>> graphity.org >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Frans Knibbe | Geodan >>>> <frans.kni...@geodan.nl> wrote: >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> I would like to express a composition relationship. Something like: >>>>> A Country consist of Provinces >>>>> A Province consists of Municipalities >>>>> >>>>> I thought this should be straightforward because this is a common and >>>>> logical kind of relationship, but I could not find a vocabulary which >>>>> allows >>>>> be to make this kind of statement. Perhaps I am bad at searching, or >>>>> maybe I >>>>> did not use the right words. >>>>> >>>>> I did find this document: >>>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/ ("Simple >>>>> part-whole relations in OWL Ontologies"). It explains that OWL has no >>>>> direct >>>>> support for this kind of relationship and it goes on to give examples on >>>>> how >>>>> one can create ontologies that do support the relationship in one way or >>>>> the >>>>> other. >>>>> >>>>> Is there a ready to use ontology/vocabulary out there that can help me >>>>> express containment/composition? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks in advance, >>>>> Frans >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> > > >
