The Entity Property page, https://docs.brickschema.org/metadata/entity-properties.html, led me to believe that there is a hasArea in the ontology when I couldn't find any such relationship.Am I missing something?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Brick User Forum (Unified Building Metadata Schema)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brickschema...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/brickschema/47cf2770-de1e-462e-acae-da08b6522019n%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/brickschema/CAKJO4n7%2Bv0UDQcTW61QwQKj2Nv-knKwQYTqd0ON9umPiHhgXtg%40mail.gmail.com.
On 27 Aug 2021, at 6:47 am, Gabe Fierro <gtfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/brickschema/CAG1EB0xhE9eZf2aVO2CQsh6%3D3KJUCxNy8HrT35JT%2BZTMuvdy7w%40mail.gmail.com.
Hi Nick:
Thanks for letting us know! I couldn't find any description of the range of geo:hasArea in the specification. Can you direct me to that description of what the values should look like?
We haven't incorporated any relations between Brick and GeoSPARQL at this time, but there is growing interest in representing more detailed geometric information in Brick models so it would be a good investment of our (Brick's) time to learn more about this upcoming GeoSPARQL ontology version to see if that solves the use cases we've been developing. I'm particularly interested in how global and local coordinates are handled.
Best,
Gabe
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/brickschema/DC0E01F2-C80D-49F9-BF8E-082E0EC34FE6%40surroundaustralia.com.