Should CDB care about NCV semantic ontology? #40
Description
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.