Representing time-dependent objects in POI data model

I can't get onto the POI wiki, so can I make a request please?  Many of the points of interest I deal with (in transport and crisismapping) are temporary or moving - for instance, a refugee camp may only exist for a few days or weeks.   Can we consider adding a time field to the POI data model, e.g. "date created", "date updated" to cover these please?

My apologies if this question seems naïve - I'm new round here, and just starting to feel my way around. 

Thank you,



Sara.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-poiwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-poiwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Raj Singh
Sent: 28 October 2010 16:46
To: public-poiwg@w3.org W3C
Subject: POI data model

I changed centroid to anchor and made a new section for listing types of anchors. We can worry about the extensibility mechanism later. 

Jens, I worry about anchors that only have 2D or 3D grid references within a building. It seems to me much harder to ensure interoperability and "linked data" without a common geographic reference. Maybe every space can at least have a geographic anchor for the enclosing building, then use a local grid reference system (x,y,z) to go from the building's anchor to the individual space.

Can you post your suggestions to the wiki?

---
Raj
The OGC: Making location count...
http://www.opengeospatial.org/contact


On Oct 28, at 8:46 AM, Jens de Smit wrote:

> On 27/10/2010 20:09, Raj Singh wrote:
>> I made a page for the data model discussion:
>> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Data_Model
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> Thanks Raj for writing this down, this gives us something to start a 
> discussion from. It seems you based your list primarily on Marco's 
> "smallest subset if information which can describe a POI" which in 
> turn was based on Gary's contributions. However, one thing Marco also 
> mentioned as being important was "extensibility"; I'd like to agree 
> with that and propose to make a significant change to the data model 
> along the following lines:
> 
> Replace "centroid" by a more flexible "anchor" (terminology subject to
> discussion) property which describes where in the world the POI belongs.
> This anchor property should have an attribute/subtype that specifies 
> how its data should be interpreted. A lat/lon/alt in WGS84 type anchor 
> seems to be a very obvious anchor type to define, but the following 
> anchor types come to mind as well:
> 
> - x,y locations on a 2D grid/ x,y,z locations on a 3D grid Use case: 
> situations where lat/lon/alt are impractical, such as in buildings 
> where dimensions are usually measured in meters. Much easier and 
> faster authoring
> 
> - fiducial markers or images
> Use case: Augmented Reality experiences obviously, but could also be 
> applied to virtual worlds
> 
> - buildings
> Use case: again, easier authoring than looking up lat/lon coordinates 
> for everything you want to describe. Also, it conveys a string 
> connection between the POI and the real-world entity that is being 
> described. This allows for smarter and nicer user interfaces; for 
> example see 
> http://www.perey.com/ARStandards/Nokia_A_Web_Services_Platform.pdf by 
> Nokia's Petros Belimpasakis et al for some functional AR examples of 
> tying POIs and buildings together, but the same usability holds for 
> maps and virtual worlds.
> 
> - dynamic entities
> Use case: wouldn't it be neat to describe a car or person as POI? As 
> computer vision improves, computers can track and recognize more and 
> more of the world around us. The AR use case is again obvious, but 
> what if you could dsignate your favourite football player as a POI? 
> Apply some CSS-like "outer-glow: 3pt yellow;" effect to your POI, link 
> it to the WebTV stream you're watching and you'll never lose track of him again.
> 
> 
> So the last example is a bit futuristic and probably won't be part of 
> the first spec but I hope it conveys why I think having a flexible 
> (and
> extensible) "anchor" property would be better than hardcoding a 
> centroid for each point. All the other properties that have been 
> written down (except perhaps address) are useful for any of these use 
> cases which is why I would really like this flexibility in the spec.
> 
> Looking forward to your opinions!
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jens
> 
> Also, this list is not exhaustive and I welcome other suggestions as well.
>

Received on Monday, 1 November 2010 15:06:24 UTC