Re: Discussion of neogeo ontology today

Carl,

Thanks for the reference to this. It is a rather unfortunate approach  
since it is not format-compatible with anything else (e.g. ISO or  
GML) and if fails to provide anything which can be handled by  
existing Web search mechanisms.

The well-known quadrature of WGS84 (interleaved latitude, longitude)  
at least allows text-search mechanisms to come up with spatial  
groupings, but this proposal provides neither aspects nor  
searchability. Perhaps we could come up with an alternative?

I had at one point include "GRL" geospatial resource locator as a Geo  
XG work item, but lack of human resources have held it back.

Josh

On Feb 28, 2007, at 7:08 PM, Carl Reed OGC Account wrote:

> Thought the group might be interested in a "geo" proposal being  
> considered by the IETF.
>
> This is a short document for defining a geo URI.
>
> http://geouri.org/draft-mayrhofer-geo-uri-00.txt
>
> One of the examples of use (as part of an entire section) is the  
> OGC WMS interface!
>
> This is related to the work as documented at the http://geouri.org/ 
> about/ website.
>
> Carl
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joshua Lieberman
> To: GeoXG GeoXG ; GeoXG GeoXG
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 8:25 AM
> Subject: Discussion of neogeo ontology today
>
> Hi,
>
> At today's call (12h30 EST, usual parameters) we should discuss the  
> proposed geo update ontology (http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/geo/ 
> Wiki/Geo_Update) as well as consider plans to augment and/or  
> federate spatial ontologies, eg what to do with foaf:based_near.
>
> Contact me or join the IRC channel (irc.w3.org:6665#geoxg) for call  
> information.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Josh
>
> Joshua Lieberman, Ph.D.
> Principal, Traverse Technologies Inc.
> mailto:jlieberman@traversetechnologies.com
> tel +1 (617) 395-7766
> fax: +1 (815) 717-981
>
>
>