Geographic relations

[pbuttigieg]

Hi all, branching off of #21

GAZ will inevitably need some more geographically themed relations in RO, linked to issues such as
EnvironmentOntology/envo#80, EnvironmentOntology/envo#148

Many existing spatial relations coming in from biology and anatomy can be used if their definitions are generalised a bit or if more general superclasses are created.

@rctauber @cmungall @lschriml Shall we use this issue to log object properties that GAZ curators feel would be useful?

[pbuttigieg]

@mpsaloha reminds me that GeoSPARQL should be cross-referenced and contacted here: https://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/geosparql

[cmungall]

Sounds good

We're already sharing some relations across anatomy and geography, e.g. tributary of. Some may be skeptical about abstracting at this level but it seems to work so far.

[cmungall]

We should also axiomatize in terms of spatial regions so that symbolic relations can be inferred from shape files etc

[pbuttigieg]

We should also axiomatize in terms of spatial regions so that symbolic relations can be inferred from shape files etc

This would make bridging to the GIS world much easier.