Re: Are POIs always tangible?

POIs should certainly not have to be tangable - even "null" POIs would
have their uses as other POIs could be positioned relative to them,
making it easy to stuff to be moved/updated together.

Likewise many non-physical unity's or even concepts could be a POI
provided they have some sort of meaningful real world location(s).

I'm not keen, however, on the idea of going to far into contact
details/buisness/chain stuff...the idea aof a "parent" of a branch of
a store being the business franchise is completely different to the
idea of POI having a physical locational relationship with another.
(ie,  poster POI might be positioned relatively to the bus it is on).

While the first idea of "parent" is indeed usefull from a search
perspective, it should be dealt with by existing semantic search and
linked data solutions - as long as the POI stores metadata about it
being a "starbucks", then its semantic relationship should be pulled
from databases elsewhere without needing the POI standard to define
business details at all.


~~~~~~
Reviews of anything, by anyone;
www.rateoholic.co.uk
Please try out my new site and give feedback :)



On 14 April 2011 14:41, Seiler, Karl <karl.seiler@navteq.com> wrote:
> All,
>
>
>
> As many of the most popular POIs are “members” of chains / brands, and since
> many a search for POIs involves “Starbuck” near me, a pure name search (with
> all its fuzzy logic variability) is not as powerful as a chain search.
>
>
>
> Therefore, in my view, a POI should be able to be a member of a group,
> chain, association via linking. Also, it is reasonable that the linked-to
> entity (parent POI) carry POI attributes like contact info.
>
>
>
> _______________________________
>
> Karl Seiler
>
> Director Location Technology & Services
>
> NAVTEQ - Chicago
>
> (T)  +312-894-7231
>
> (M) +312-375-5932
>
> www.navteq.com
>
>
>
> From: public-poiwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-poiwg-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Andy Braun
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 7:30 AM
> To: Public POI @ W3C
> Subject: Are POIs always tangible?
>
>
>
> We started a discussion on the call this week[1] that has been floating
> around for some time.
>
>
>
> Should the POI spec account for items that are not physical in nature and
> therefore are not specifically tied to some geospatial context. Examples
> would be things like Starbucks (the corporation) or a government body.
>
>
>
> For me the question comes down to one of linking. Does tying individual
> Starbucks together have value? (and as Alex pointed out is a conceptual POI
> even necessary for that).  The immediate concern is that we end up trying to
> write a spec that covers everything. This could lead us down a slippery
> slope.
>
>
>
> It would great to seem some other thoughts in this area
>
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/04/13-poiwg-minutes.html#item05
>
> ________________________________
> The information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is
> intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not
> the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
> distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is
> strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
> please notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any
> copy of it from your computer or paper files.

Received on Thursday, 14 April 2011 13:01:34 UTC