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

RE: data model and example

From: Seiler, Karl <karl.seiler@navteq.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 15:14:39 -0500
To: Raj Singh <rsingh@opengeospatial.org>, "roBman@mob-labs.com" <roBman@mob-labs.com>
CC: "public-poiwg@w3.org" <public-poiwg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <133ACBBC61BE0E4081B6E35E542ECE230ED6BE65@hq-ex-mb03.ad.navteq.com>
The point><point nesting is the only thing bothering.

_______________________________
Karl Seiler
Director Location Technology & Services
NOKIA Location and Commerce - Chicago
(T)  +312-894-7231
(M) +312-375-5932

-----Original Message-----
From: public-poiwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-poiwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Raj Singh
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 1:22 PM
To: roBman@mob-labs.com
Cc: public-poiwg@w3.org
Subject: Re: data model and example

On Sep 30, at 12:35 AM, Rob Manson wrote:

> Hey Raj,
>
>> No. I wanted to specify the author, but I'm having trouble figuring
>> out how to represent it. See:
>> http://rajsingh.org/poiwg/poi_logan_2.xml
>
> Yeah I think that's better.  I'd assume if <value> is not defined then
> the full content is assumed to be the payload?

I suppose that's a possibility. It would look cleaner, but as a developer, I'd rather just always know to parse the <value> element as text, rather than have a conditional check to see if there are elements within <description>, and if not then treat <description> as text.

>>> Is the <point><Point>...</Point></point> double nesting needed?
>>
>> Yes. Everything in <Point> is straight from GML 3.3. And the
>> double-nesting will be useful. For one, it will avoid the problem with
>> <description> above, where you don't want to mix CDATA with an
>> element. I.e. it's easy to slip an <author> element in as a child of
>> <point> without messing with the location specification in <Point>.
>
> Fair enough.  I'd also like to be able to support the simpler geo:uri
> too as a lot of developers would be happy with just that too.

At the face-to-face we decided to put a stake in the ground here and have a single way to represent a point. There are too many "pet" point formats around. It would be better in the long run for the world to focus on a single one for interoperability. And what better place to have the canonical one than the W3C POI spec? And for practical reasons, if you're generating POIs, writing <Point><posList> instead of geo:uri is the least of your problems! And as a consumer of POI data (at least the XML format), it's nice to always know to find the coordinates in the <posList> element.



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 Monday, 3 October 2011 20:15:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:05:22 UTC