Re: Service URNs

On 29/07/2010 12:37, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>> Also, the governing of
>> service descriptors is probably a task that should have its own charter
>> as it would not do to have that task end with the conclusion of this
>> group's charter.
> 
> Currently, the POI group seemed the closest existing target, but it's clear that the group's focus is much more AR than geo-POI. I'm trying to determine an appropriate home...

Yeah, at the time (the end of the Barcelona workshop) we decided to
start a group dealing with POIs, but I now realize that we suffered some
"definition shift" during the workshop: we had already come to the
conclusion that we had to deal with more than lat/lon points but, by
lack of a better term, we still referred to this broader definition as
"POIs" so that became the name of the group. Over the past few weeks we
have shifted to calling these entities "triggers", partly because people
not present at the workshop thought, by the name POI WG, that we would
be dealing with only the classic, geodetic, definition of POI. It was
never our intention (or at least not Christine's or mine) to restrict
ourselves to geospatial.

>> I'm not very familiar with the field but isn't there a group in the
>> semantic web community that concerns itself with standardising
>> classifications such as these?
> 
> I haven't found one, but that probably shows my lack of semantic web knowledge...

Same here...

>> If not, should we start one (separate
>> from the POI/AR WG)?
> 
> I think this would be quite useful. Right now, in my opinion, the field is a mess. We have rank amateurs making things up one by one in OpenStreets, and we have professionals (like the Census) maintaining the NAICS list, but the latter is only a subset of what's needed since it deals with businesses and is meant for tax and statistics, not tourists.
> 
> It is possible that the OGC (Open Geospatial Consortium) is relevant, but none of their existing standards address this issue, and the service labeling goes beyond GIS systems. (For example, it's obviously a way to tag web pages, rather than just map objects.)

Perhaps we could adopt a model where relevant groups contribute LoST
service identifiers to a centralized body, perhaps IANA, instead of
having one group deciding "what's good" for us all. I believe there are
many relevant groups (as you've already listed), getting representatives
from each may be harder than simply opening up registration for those
who have meaningful contributions.

> In general, the OGC efforts probably deserve more attention even in the AR community, as there's likely to be overlap on the geometry and time-related side of things.

We've had some OGC involvement in the Barcelona workshop and I hope
those people are monitoring this list and will get themselves involved
once we start working on these definitions.

> I'm not familiar with the W3 process, but if there's a way to start a "BOF" to gauge interest, private advice would be much appreciated.

I believe that the appropriate form for that would be an Interest Group,
but someone with more W3C experience than me probably knows more about this.

Regards,

Jens

Received on Thursday, 29 July 2010 12:59:43 UTC