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

Re: Geospatial XG telecon - 21 June

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:31:49 +0200
Message-ID: <4677DAC5.7070203@danbri.org>
To: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@traversetechnologies.com>
CC: chris goad <chris@platial.com>, Mike Liebhold <mnl@well.com>, public-xg-geo@w3.org, member-xg-geo@w3.org

Joshua Lieberman wrote:
> Chris,
> 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.

I'm plenty fine with a new vocab being created. I was more concerned 
with potential for non-backwards-friendly changes, than with standing in 
the way of progress. The point of doing the SWIG vocab was to do the 
tinyest thing we could possibly have done in RDF geo space while still 
being useful. It's time to go a bit deeper :)

		 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.

Sounds plausible to me, but I don't know neogeo well. Perhaps we could 
get some test instance data together? And experiment with 
transformations (using SPARQL, XSLT, whatever, ...).


> Cheers,
> Josh
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 13:32:05 UTC

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