Provide instructions on how hasLocation can support a cemetery's local grave addressing scheme #50
Replies: 2 comments
-
Further examples to consider when designing a local addressing scheme... Toowong Cemetery has 11 single-sided wall columbariums.
There is a double-sided wall columbarium in Toowong Cemetery that has a different addressing scheme. I will add details below when I understand it. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
The double-sided wall columbarium in Toowong Cemetery has another different addressing scheme... The niches in the Toowong Cemetery double-sided wall columbarium are addressed using, The The
Each
The
The
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Most cemeteries have a map and a unique scheme to specify a grave's location. Not all cemeteries have latitude longitude coordinates for each individual grave. This feature request is to provide instructions in the specification on how the ontology can be extended to support a local grave addressing scheme and enable queries using that scheme.
As an example:
Mon 18 - 2/#/14
. This represents that the grave is in Portion 18, Section 2, Grave 14, which is how it is referred to in Toowong Cemetery.Users of the Toowong Cemetery data may want to query the data using the Portion-Section-Grave scheme. For example:
This requirement is currently acknowledged as a limitation - https://rdf.muninn-project.org/ontologies/graves-en.html#objectives
Emphasis added in the quote to the suggested solution that would partially address this requirement.
Instead of using a string, what if people could add their own properties (portion, section, grave)? What are the pros and cons of this and how is is best done?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions