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

Re: Geospatial XG telecon - 21 June

From: chris goad <chris@platial.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:58:12 -0700
Message-ID: <018901c7b1fc$26fb8040$0200a8c0@skipanon>
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>, "Mike Liebhold" <mnl@well.com>, "Joshua Lieberman" <jlieberman@traversetechnologies.com>
Cc: <public-xg-geo@w3.org>, <member-xg-geo@w3.org>

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 08:39:39 UTC

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