I am currently working on a project involving a spatial ontology. However, it is not very clear to me to what extent spatial ontologies are available in practice (and not only sketched in scholar papers). LinkedGeoData seems to be a good choice, as I am gathering spatial data (e.g. amenities, etc) from OSM, still it seems that I can't download the RDF triples directly from their SPARQL endpoints (see some OSM Example Queries), and also I'm not sure whether I can enrich (and extend) such ontology with new open-data from third-party sources (in addition to OSM nodes and ways).

Once I select a node, I need to gather as many information as possible about it (e.g., considering a shop: position, leisure/work, similar places, ...), possibly integrating the ontology with third-party open data. As such, I need somehow to be able to extend LinkedGeoData knowledge with external sources. How can I add this new data if not by downloading the ontology, its instances, and enrich the ontology with my data?

Am I missing the scope of LinkedGeoData? Are there any (real) alternatives to it?

  • Are you just interested in OSM, or about the use of spatial ontologies wider than that. What do you want the ontology to describe spatially? – nmtoken Jul 21 '17 at 7:51
  • Have you reviewed these Q&As: gis.stackexchange.com/search?q=ontology – PolyGeo Jul 21 '17 at 7:54
  • The other Q&A partially address my Q. An ontology for OSM is a valuable starting point, as I am gathering spatial data (e.g. amenities, etc) from OSM. Once I select a shop located in OSM, the more information I get about it the better it is (e.g., position, leisure/work, similar places, ...). Also, I need to integrate open data which are not available in OSM. Considering LinkedGeoData, how can I add this new data if not by downloading the ontology, its instances, and enrich the ontology with my data? – w4bo Jul 21 '17 at 10:40
  • Please use the edit button beneath your question to revise it with any requested clarifications or additional information. – PolyGeo Jul 21 '17 at 11:55

1. Actually, there is a difference between the SELECT and CONSTRUCT commands from SPARQL Endpoint.

While SELECT is "just" getting answers as tabular, CONSTRUT queries get the whole consistent triples structure. The second is therefore well suited to the reconstruction of a subgraph dedicated to your application.

2. Because of the use of the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), datasets are easily merged and data exchanged. The difficulties here are to well identify which are the useful resources and to define them as equal (See rdfs:seeAlso, owl:sameAs, ...).

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.