Yes Martijn there are weak classifications, everything that is not mapped is not represented in the database. For example the classification in five groups of tags and in the subgroups in the map feature list is not expressed in the database. OSM database is missing abstraction levels. Moreover all tags are treated seamlessly, even when they are properties or subclassifications. Martin, existing linguistic resources in the semantic web are able to identify not only synonymy but almost all relation between concepts, also some topological relation like partonomy (a thing is a part of another). Gianfra > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:27:01 +0100 > From: dieterdre...@gmail.com > To: m...@rtijn.org > CC: talk@openstreetmap.org; e...@waniasset.com > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Semantics layer for tags > > 2011/1/10 Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org>: > > (forgot to copy to talk) > > > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com> wrote: > >> Martijn van Exel <m <at> rtijn.org> writes: > > The latter. The user would be able to tag a feature with "chemist", > > "pharmacy", "farmacia or "apotheek" and that would result in the same > > coding in the OSM database (currently: shop=chemist). > > > amenity=pharmacy, dispensing=yes/no > > When consuming > > OSM data, the process could be reversed; based on the locale, a > > feature tagged "shop=chemist" could (would) be output as being one of > > these culturally determined Things. Note that a "chemist", a > > "pharmacy", a "farmacia" and an "apotheek" are names for something > > that is similar across cultures and languages, but not literally the > > same. > > > > The idea is to *avoid* having different classifications on the > > database level, even though one concept could be represented by two > > different names in one language (consider freeway / highway). Any > > ambiguity arising from that would have to be handled by additional > > attributes. > > > I fear that a system like that will soon become utterly complex, thus > disabling most of the mappers of taking part in the > "tag-development-process". It would shift the discussions away from > the ML and wiki to defining the semantic rule set. And still we would > have to have definitions in natural language to define what a feature > is about, so there is no guarantee that there won't be contradictions > or different tags with the same meaning. > > I agree that it is a good idea to develop such a ruleset (or extend an > existing one like linked geodata) to make the usage of our dataset > easier (for developers), but I agree with you: it is not a magic wand. > > cheers, > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
