W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-poiwg@w3.org > August 2010

Re: [uk-government-data-developers] Couple of Ordnance Survey things

From: Alex Hill <ahill@gatech.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:13:46 -0400
To: public-poiwg@w3.org
Message-Id: <05D28510-CD04-4E17-9974-C4D0B3875FC1@gatech.edu>
Sorry for the delay in weighing in.
Please let know if I am not following any protocol.

On Aug 18, 2010, at 6:27 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:

> Might be of interest here, re current trends/activities...
> Dan
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: John Goodwin <John.Goodwin@ordnancesurvey.co.uk>
> Date: Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:23 PM
> Subject: [uk-government-data-developers] Couple of Ordnance Survey things
> To: uk-government-data-developers@googlegroups.com
> Hi all,
> The OS OpenSpace Wiki is now live:
> http://osopenspacewiki.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
> and the TOID lookup service is now back up and running:
> http://opentoids.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/toidservice/
> example:
> http://opentoids.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/toidservice/location/300000,300000

Does this effort seek to assign a GUID to each physical object (buildiings, lakes, etc.)?
I find this very interesting since I feel that only being able to refer to coordinates in space is inadequate for AR.
It might suffice for the current crop of applications, but I imagine a future where content is very tightly registered with the content in the physical world.
For one thing, no one wants to author a sign on the top of a store by climbing to the roof (if accessible) and determining the coordinates.
And, authoring content on the side of a vehicle means referring to the vehicle and not any specific coordinates.
Another reason I am in favor of a GUID is that I suspect there will be numerous competing representations of buildings and structures to choose from.
And, given multiple databases providing model data (likely) for structures, one would want to avoid collisions (i.e. two models of the same building visible).
A GUID aids some of the discussions about where content is meant to be placed (i.e on the corner of 5th and Spring, in the middle of the courtyard).
Does one want to associate their content with -85.0,34.0 or at the Klaus Computing building?
Both have different semantic meanings and practical consequences.
I'd also like to call into question this whole concept of giving buildings and structures coordinates.
Although the utility on a map is obvious, the practical value of a floating tag at the exact center of a building is unclear when on is viewing a small section of it.
The actual "location" of a building needs to be tied to the "extent" of that structure and hence to the "officially accepted model" of that structure (and it's origin's relation to the coordinates).
Granted, a combination of a model and coordinates is likely sufficient, but this just highlights that coordinates in themselves are inadequate for any real AR application.

> see British National Grid for more coordinates:
> http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/images/userImages/misc/education/nationalgrid/natgrid2.gif
> John
> This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and
> may contain confidential information. If you have received this email
> in error, please notify the sender and delete this email which must
> not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person.
> Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to
> the writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey.
> Nor can any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email.
> We reserve the right to monitor emails and attachments without prior
> notice.
> Thank you for your cooperation.
> Ordnance Survey
> Romsey Road
> Southampton SO16 4GU
> Tel: 08456 050505
> http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk

Alex Hill Ph.D.
Postdoctoral Fellow
Augmented Environments Laboratory
Georgia Institute of Technology

Received on Saturday, 21 August 2010 11:26:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:48:25 UTC