For the experiment, we've focused mainly on the GGDM application of the NAS schema. However, a lot of ongoing work in OGC seems to be focused on semantics. GGDM and NAS are both backed by the NCV ontology - I believe expressed using OWL - that defines the actual semantics of entities, attributes, and enumerants.
Should CDB have a concept of a vocabulary ontology that the GGDM/NAS/whatever is linked to vs. just directly encoding these standards as a traditional feature dictionary?
One example of the distinction is that attributes are global in CDB, but per-entity-type in GGDM and NAS with an implicit linkage back to the NCV vocabulary term for the attribute providing the shared meaning.
For the experiment, we've focused mainly on the GGDM application of the NAS schema. However, a lot of ongoing work in OGC seems to be focused on semantics. GGDM and NAS are both backed by the NCV ontology - I believe expressed using OWL - that defines the actual semantics of entities, attributes, and enumerants.
Should CDB have a concept of a vocabulary ontology that the GGDM/NAS/whatever is linked to vs. just directly encoding these standards as a traditional feature dictionary?
One example of the distinction is that attributes are global in CDB, but per-entity-type in GGDM and NAS with an implicit linkage back to the NCV vocabulary term for the attribute providing the shared meaning.