W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-geo@w3.org > June 2007

Re: Geospatial XG telecon - 21 June

From: Mike Liebhold <mnl@well.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:46:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51104.>
To: chris@platial.com, danbri@danbri.org, jlieberman@traversetechnologies.com, public-xg-geo@w3.org

Hi again friends,

My apology Dan, I was, of course referring to your
http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/ basic vocabulary and to the early related
geoRSS adopted by Yahoo and others.


> ...
> Objectives
> The Geospatial XG has three objectives which address needs of the Local
>    * Immediate: update and harmonization with GeoRSS of the GEO
vocabulary, aka simplest useful geospatial ontology.
< ...

Thanks Chris, for starting the discussion I expected this w3c working
group would  engage. Since many user communities are already entrenched
using two alternate vocabularies,  How can we agree on  minimally simple
mechanisms   to reference  and accept the alternate non native version of
geoRSS ?


chris goad wrote:

> Hello Joshua,Mike,Dan,
> I will be available on Thursday, and will call in at the appointed time.
> How far have things gotten with
>> http://mapbureau.com/neogeo/neogeo.owl ?
> Our objective was to formulate OWL for GeoRSS - both simple and GML - as
it is described at http://georss.org  The values of many georss 
properties are strings taking the form of space-separated sequences of
numbers. A constraint of this  kind not directly expressable in OWL - so
some of the rules  are left unformalized. Still, I hope that what is
present is correct. Comments welcome of course!  BTW, neogeo.owl 
validates as OWL  Lite at
> As far as harmonizing with the original RDF geo vocabulary:  this
probably should have been an active topic of discussion, but hasn't
been.  My own favored option would be  to add  geo:lat and geo:long to
the set of properties that can asserted of a _Feature - endorsing this
as an alternative to georss:point for expressing simple location.  
geo:latlong could be included as well (I don't really have an opinion on
this one)   I wouldn't include  geo:Point nor geo:SpatialThing, because
more semantic discord  than harmony would be the likely result (also my
bet is that  these primitives have been less widely used than lat or
long) Geo:alt should be excluded for  a different reason:   georss is
2d, so it doesn't really make sense to insert this as the only way of
making an altitude statement - and one that is not applicable to lines,
polygons, etc.
> That's only my opinion. What do you think?
> -- Chris
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>
> To: "Mike Liebhold" <mnl@well.com>
> Cc: "Joshua Lieberman" <jlieberman@traversetechnologies.com>;
<public-xg-geo@w3.org>; <member-xg-geo@w3.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 3:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Geospatial XG telecon - 21 June
>> Mike Liebhold wrote:
>>> Hello Joshua,
>>> I'll be in a meeting all-day on Thursday, so will miss the
teleconference/chat. I am still hoping that the geo xg will focus on
influencing W3C members ( eg. Yahoo, et. al. )to rationalize geoRSS
simple with OGC wgs84 geoRSS.
>>> It's a bit suprising to read that the geo xg is a wrap, given the
unfinished business harmonizing geoRSS versions. I hope that the group
will continue until this modest goal is achieved.
>> I'm afraid I also can't make it, will be in transit back from
Copenhagen at that time. As (for SW Interest Group) editor of
http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/ and the wgs84-based little RDF namespace
there, am interested to hear of any proposed updates. What's the status
of "neogeo"? How far have things gotten with
http://mapbureau.com/neogeo/neogeo.owl ?
>> cheers,
>> Dan
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 01:46:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:43:25 UTC