Yes, this is an ontology that has been developed many times. (01)
I would love to hear: "I adapted X ontology, adding Y, ignoring Z, and
changing W (because ...)" instead of "we developed almost the same
thing (except X) and hey, Y is a good idea that we might as well
incorporate." (02)
-- doug foxvog (03)
On Wed, September 26, 2012 11:46, Godfrey Rust wrote:
> Thank you David. That is pretty exactly much the detailed model that we
> have developed in our own ontologies (which are not primarily about Place,
> but which take Time and Place as the absolute primitives) so it is
> comforting to see it mirrored here. We normally use the word
> Localizable rather than ¯Geographic¯ or Physical¯ to
> distinguish from Virtual. (04)
> The complex Party/Address relations are of increasing value now that
> people have so many different contacts. One common feature is that an
> Address will often be associated with the relationship between two Parties
> ("this is the email I use when working for this company, and this is the
> one I use as secretary of my sports club"¯).
>
> Godfrey
>
> From: David C. Hay
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 4:14 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures
>
> In my model of the world (dare I say "upper level ontology"), Enterprise
> Model Patterns: Describing the World, I have put a lot of thought into the
> distinctions you describe here.
>
> In my model, Geographic Location, is an place on Earth (OK, I am a
> geocentric personality, but the model can be extended skyward if
> necessary). The sub-types are Geographic Area, Geographic Point,
> Geographic Line, and Geographic Solid. (I only encountered the latter two
> late in my career, when I worked for a telephone company and an oil
> company.)
>
> Geographic Area, then, is defined as any bounded 2-dimensional place.
> (Since we're talking about the Earth, we have to recognize that it's
> really a spherically 2-dimensional place, but that's in the advanced
> class...)
>
> Geographic Area has four sub-types:
>
> 1. Geopolitical Area is a Geographic Area whose boundaries are defined by
> law or treaty. Thus you have the Geographic Areas that are "California",
> "Los Angeles County", and the like. Defining sub-types for Geopolitical
> Area depends on where you are, but I've come up with at least these:
> a. City
> b. Country
> c. Principle Country Subdivision (which is a really ugly name for
> "State", or "Province" or (for our UK buddies) "County") In most real
> models it turns out to be something like State or Province.
> d. Other Geopolitical Area (subject to negotiation).
>
> 2. Administrative Area is a Geographic Area whose boundaries are defined,
> typically, by an organization, such as a corporation, but also may be by a
> government. Examples of this include "South-central sales area" (defined
> by a company), "United States Pacific Command (USPACOM)"(defined by the US
> Department of Defense), and more common, a "Postal Area" (defined by a
> national postal authority).
>
> 3. Natural Area is a Geographic Area whose boundaries are defined by
> natural phenomena, such as lakes or continents.
>
> 4. Other Surveyed Area is any Geographic Area (other than 1-3, above) that
> is measured and whose boundaries are recorded. This includes the lot my
> house is on, the area that is the location of the World Trade Center in
> New York, and so forth.
>
> Geographic Point is just that: a Geographic Location that is a single
> point. Usually it's attributes are "longitude", "latitude", and
> "elevation", but with different systems of geographic reckoning, they
> could be something else.
>
> Note the this model requires a Geographic Location Relationship, which is
> the recursive entity type that links one Geographic Location to another.
> Sub-types of this include Geographic Definition (linking points to areas,
> lines and solids), Geographic Structure (that puts "Boston" inside
> "Massachusetts"), Geographic Overlap (one of which puts the "Navaho Indian
> Reservation" in "Arizona", and another of which puts the "Navaho Indian
> Reservation" in New Mexico. And of course there's Other Geographic
> Location Relationship, just in case.
>
> All of this is a pretty sophisticated way to represent just places. The
> Government that has jurisdiction over a Geopolitical Area is represented
> by an Organization, linked to the Geopolitical Area via a link class that
> I have cleverly called Jurisdiction.
>
> Note also that this only covers the place itself. A "place with a
> purpose" is variously called a Site, a Facility, or an Address. This is
> where one or more Parties (Persons or Organizations) are located to
> perform one or more Activities, which consume, use, or produce one or more
> Physical Assets.
>
> Note that Address (for example) has two sub-types: Physical Address
> (which has some fairly complex relationships with Geographic Location),
> and Virtual Address (which nicely covers Telephone Address, E-mail
> Address, IP Address, and so forth.)
>
> A Party may be located in one or more Addresses (Physical or Virtual),
> just as an Address may be the location of one or more Parties.
>
> Note that a physical building is located in one (or more?) Site (again,
> for example), but it is not the same as the Site. It is a Physical Asset.
>
> Among the simplest applications we build simply lists names and addresses.
> That's an output. To actually understand what goes inside that "simple"
> application requires way more sophistication than most people appreciate.
> I've spent a fair amount of my career working on this model.
>
> If you've actually read this far, you are a good candidate for buying my
> book.
>
> Regards
>
> Dave Hay
>
>
> At 08:52 AM 9/26/2012, you wrote:
>
> On 9/26/2012 8:53 AM, Andries van Renssen wrote:
> > The reason why the expression 'I dig a hole in the school district'
> > sounds odd is: because that expression is a short-cut for 'I dig
> > a hole in the land that has a role as school district'.
>
> I agree with that point. The notion of role is essential for
> distinguishing every subdivision on planet earth. There is
> always a reason or a purpose for the choice. That is true for
> everything from countries and continents to things like farms,
> parking lots, and playgrounds.
>
> > But the piece of land that is defined by that boundary is
> > nevertheless a physical object, and it has a mass, although
> > its value is unknown and not of interest.
>
> Space is physical, but it doesn't have a mass. An area is
> a two-dimensional region. The political subdivisions only
> specify coordinates that determine the area at the surface,
> and they are silent about depth or height.
>
> By fiat, the governments of countries lay claim to the mineral
> rights beneath their areas. In principle, they could claim rights
> down to the center of the earth. But in practice, the technology
> can only mine a few km. beneath the surface.
>
> When air travel became possible, national governments laid claim
> to the air space above them, but smaller governments did not.
> But nobody laid claim to the regions above the atmosphere.
> Those are more distinctions by fiat.
>
> In summary, I recommend that any ontology for any subdivision
> of the earth should specify the surface area S and the intended
> role R for that area.
>
> Then anything else that may be associated with the pair (S,R),
> such as the land, air, water, people, buildings, governments,
> should be specified as the X associated with the area S as
> considered in the role R.
>
> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (06)
|