W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > August 2010

Re: Little Maps of the US

From: Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:49:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <634396.55674.qm@web82404.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
To: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
Cc: public-egov-ig@w3.org
Gannon: "IMHO, the RDFa meta data should not include the 'Weather' parameters 
themselves."
 
Why not?

Michael A. Norton
 




________________________________
From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
To: Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com>
Cc: public-egov-ig@w3.org
Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 1:11:50 PM
Subject: Re: Little Maps of the US

--- On Wed, 8/25/10, Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is this anywhere near the kind of data NWS utilizes in mapping meteorological 
data?

Yes, as a matter of fact ...

But let me back up just a little: The "Little Maps" are a grid point subset.  
The meta data is assumed constant, and it changes so slowly that that assumption 
is valid.  Weather observations and Forecasts are a time dependent Mash-Up. This 
topic is a huge subject of controversy at the moment, because a person's 
location is a similar type of Mash-Up. This debate runs counter to the 
Scientific Method since there is no reason to believe that observations are 
reproducible and computable with sound semantic principles.  This sort of 
thinking will get us both burned at the stake in Advertising Departments, Mr. 
Norton :o)  


The NWS has a beta test of XML available, as well as some XSL transforms (which 
I have not had a good look at).  It would not be too difficult to add a Weather 
link to the "Little Map".  IMHO, the RDFa meta data should not include the 
"Weather" parameters themselves.

<http://www.weather.gov/alerts-beta/>


-- Gannon


      
Received on Friday, 27 August 2010 01:49:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 August 2010 01:49:38 GMT