W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-poiwg@w3.org > July 2011

Re: OGC's proposed GeoSPARQL standard

From: Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:52:33 +1000
To: "discussion@arstandards.org" <discussion@arstandards.org>, "public-poiwg@w3.org" <public-poiwg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1310395953.15109.8943.camel@robslapu>
> Carl has coordinated with the W3C SPARQL folks on a review of this. 

Cool...I'd be interested to hear how that was received.


> It's hard to comment on any specific relationship to a domain of
> interest such as AR. My general opinion on questions like this is that
> the technology should be loosely coupled enough to support a wide
> range of innovation by creative developers in all domains. As long as
> we support RDF in the POI work, things should take care of themselves
> in the AR arena.

I generally agree with that 8)  And I also think AR provides an
interesting perspective that often pushes existing use cases in new
directions.  The comments about other serialisation formats other than
GML is one simple but tangible example. 


roBman


> On Jul 11, at 10:38 AM, Rob Manson wrote:
> 
> > Thought I'd post this link to both groups as it seems very relevant in a
> > lot of ways.  Especially back to some early points I made about the
> > separation between "representation" and "query".
> > 
> >        OGC Seeks Comment on candidate GeoSPARQL standard
> >        http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/requests/80
> >        Please note: This Request is scheduled to close on 5 August
> >        2011.
> > 
> > George, Raj, Carl - what are your thoughts on this in relation to AR?
> > 
> > 
> > roBman
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 11 July 2011 15:08:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 11 July 2011 15:08:13 GMT