geo location metadata

[sebastiankb]

request from #941

[sebastiankb]

from today's TD call:

• @mmccool samples shall relevant to concrete use case
• we shall discover the findings from the next PlugFest
• proposal is to merge the PR for now and make them available for the next draft, however, examples will be modified based on the findings from PlugFest
• there will be editorial note that points out the WIP status --> @sebastiankb
• the second update shall be updated to a property that return location based data --> @sebastiankb

[vcharpenay]

the usual prefix for WGS84 is geo (see prefix.cc)

[vcharpenay]

but it might be confusing for readers to use two different vocabularies (WGS84 and schema.org) for the same kind of information (long/lat). WGS84 is very small and entirely included in schema.org (semantically). It might be better to use schema.org only.

[sebastiankb]

I will change this to geo.

It might be better to use schema.org only.

Thats right. The intention was to show different examples that uses different ontologies.

[vcharpenay]

I guess the example intends to show how e.g. to interpret

{
  "long": 40.75,
  "lat": 73.98,
  "height": 15
}

as

{
  "@context": "http://schema.org/",
  "schema:longitude": 40.75,
  "schema:latitude": 73.98,
  "schema:elevation": 15
}

.

I provide an example for this in the JSON Schema in RDF vocabulary, which simply consists in linking to a JSON-LD context from the TD, as follows

{
  "properties": {
    "position": {
      "jsonld:context": {
        "schema": "http://schema.org/"
        "long": "schema:longitude",
        "lat": "schema:latitude",
        "height": "schema:elevation"
      },
      "type": "object",
      "properties": {
        "long": { "type": "number" },
        "lat": { "type": "number" },
        "height": { "type": "number" }
      }
    }
  }
}

The value for jsonld:context is an inline JSON-LD context that provides a mapping for long, lat and height.

[sebastiankb]

Would it be also possible to use this example?

{
  "properties": {
    "position": {
      "type": "object",
      "properties": {
        "@type" : "schema:GeoCoordinates",
        "longitude": { "type": "number" },
        "latitude": { "type": "number" },
        "elevation": { "type": "number" }
      }
    }
  }
}

[vcharpenay]

as a further example, yes. I would keep the one with jsonld:context, though, because it corresponds to another requirement.

[sebastiankb]

Lets keep both approaches to show the different kind of options how semantic based annotations can be applied.

[relu91]

Shouldn't it be:

{
  "properties": {
    "position": {
      "type": "object",
       "@type" : "schema:GeoCoordinates",
      "properties": {
        "longitude": { "type": "number" },
        "latitude": { "type": "number" },
        "elevation": { "type": "number" }
      }
    }
  }
}

?

[vcharpenay]

yes, my bad.

[sebastiankb]

thanks for the hint. I updated the example.

[sebastiankb]

I updated the samples based on @vcharpenay feedback.

[sebastiankb]

merge this PR and apply the new render script as next