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

Re: Geospatial XG telecon - 21 June

From: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@traversetechnologies.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:49:17 -0400
Message-Id: <ED0FFE6D-BC09-48E6-BB3C-459BC9001322@traversetechnologies.com>
Cc: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>, "Mike Liebhold" <mnl@well.com>, <public-xg-geo@w3.org>, <member-xg-geo@w3.org>
To: chris goad <chris@platial.com>


Glad you'll be able to join on Thursday. The incubator's charter  
expires next Saturday, so we have to get neogeo ensconced somewhere  
and figure out if / how to propose a geosemantics interest group as a  
follow on.

There has been plenty of discussion about geo:lat and geo:long. With  
due respect to Dan for being a pioneer here, the consensus has  
generally been that a different vocabulary would more clearly mark a  
transition to feature-based tags. We could certainly, however, add  
them as feature properties to neogeo and express the assertion that  
taken together they also should be considered to map to the general  
feature model with point geometry in the same way as georss:point. Is  
this valuable? It would be useful feedback, of which we have not  
gotten very much to date.



On Jun 18, 2007, at 6:58 PM, 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  
> WonderWeb:http://www.mygrid.org.uk/OWL/Validator
> 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 01:49:32 UTC

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