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

RE: ISSUE-43: Do we want polygons to have complex topology with holes, etc

From: Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:45:54 +1000
To: "public-poiwg@w3.org" <public-poiwg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1311731154.2937.91734.camel@robslapu>
Hey Karl,

> From a navigation perspective we see POI locations that now run a gamut from:

These examples don't seem like POIs at all to me.  They seem like
narrative descriptions of relationships between multiple spatial
entities.

> That restaurant is in this hamlet

The restaurant is a POI and the hamlet is a poorly defined polygon that
changes over time.

> The taxi stand is near the intersection of Hollywood and Vine

The taxi stand is a POI and the intersection is a spatial interaction
between two polygons (e.g. Hollywood and Vine).

> The shop is at this interpolated location based on an address

The shop is a POI...the interpolated location is a data point with a
value judgement associated to it about quality and origin and the
address is another data structure.

> The main entrance to the park is at this x/y/z

The main entrance is a POI and the x/y/z are it's positional definition.

> ...to, right hand side door to the door optometrist if at this high fidelity x/y/z

This seems more like a set of narrative descriptions to aid in
wayfinding.

Etc...

All of these things could be layered on top of or related to a simple
and elegant POI definition.  A simple and elegant POI definition does
not preclude these types of things.  But these types of things do
nothing in terms of helping define a simple and elegant POI definition.

The same goes for the text of the subject line for this ISSUE-43.  A
polygon with or without complex topology is not a POINT of Interest.
Surely these other geometries are things that could be linked or related
to a POI just like a 3D model or image, etc.


roBman


> For other purposes such as representations we see POI locations that now run a gamut from:
> The center of Illinois is x/y
> The theater district is bounded by this geo-fence
> The center point of the building this POI is in is at x/y
> The building footprint of the airport is this polygon
> The building wireframe extrusion is ...
> The 3d model for the building is...
> 
> _______________________________
> Karl Seiler
> Director Location Technology & Services
> NAVTEQ - Chicago
> (T)  +312-894-7231
> (M) +312-375-5932
> www.navteq.com
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Reed [mailto:creed@opengeospatial.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 9:46 PM
> To: Thomas Wrobel; Seiler, Karl
> Cc: Points of Interest Working Group WG
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-43: Do we want polygons to have complex topology with holes, etc
> 
> Thomas -
> 
> If we do decide to define polygon as part of the PoI spec, I might suggest 
> using the polygon elements as defined in the ISO/OGC 19107 Spatial Schema 
> standard. 19107 provides the abstract model for geometry as used in many 
> other standards such as OGC Simple Features, GeoJSON, GeoRSS, and GML.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Carl
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Thomas Wrobel" <darkflame@gmail.com>
> To: "Seiler, Karl" <karl.seiler@navteq.com>
> Cc: "Points of Interest Working Group WG" <member-poiwg@w3.org>
> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 1:04 PM
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-43: Do we want polygons to have complex topology with 
> holes, etc
> 
> 
> As long as the points are specified relative to a achor/¨main¨ point I
> dont think having holes or islands is any extra effort.
> I believe most vector specifications simply use
> clockwise/anticlockwise point placement to specify inside/outside
> regions.
> 
> I think region-definition is most useful for naming/precise searches.
> (¨what POIs are within the park?¨). However, this might be best to
> leave for later as you quickly get into the issue of (¨why not specify
> a 3d volume? - am I inside that building or not?¨).
> I dont think theres any logical sense to have 2d areas and not 3d. So
> maybe for the first draft we should stick to the core ¨point¨ of the
> POI.
> 
> Remember, of course, specifying an area of a POI is completely
> different to attaching a 3d model to a POI. (or a 2d polygon for that
> mater). One is a question of define a region, he other is merely an
> association of data with that region.
> 
> -Thomas
> 
> ~~~~~~
> Reviews of anything, by anyone;
> www.rateoholic.co.uk
> Please try out my new site and give feedback :)
> 
> 
> 
> On 21 July 2011 19:44, Seiler, Karl <karl.seiler@navteq.com> wrote:
> > What is the purpose of a polygon for a POI?
> > It can let someone know when they are there ("inside the park").
> > It can enable display of a footprint other than a pushpin.
> >
> > I feel the value of representation for islands is rendering.
> >
> > _______________________________
> > Karl Seiler
> > Director Location Technology & Services
> > NAVTEQ - Chicago
> > (T) +312-894-7231
> > (M) +312-375-5932
> > www.navteq.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: member-poiwg-request@w3.org [mailto:member-poiwg-request@w3.org] On 
> > Behalf Of Points of Interest Working Group Issue Tracker
> > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 9:26 AM
> > To: member-poiwg@w3.org
> > Subject: ISSUE-43: Do we want polygons to have complex topology with 
> > holes, etc
> >
> >
> > ISSUE-43: Do we want polygons to have complex topology with holes, etc
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/track/issues/43
> >
> > Raised by:
> > On product:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 Wednesday, 27 July 2011 01:46:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 July 2011 01:46:30 GMT