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

On Aug 23, 2010, at 8:20 AM, Thomas Wrobel wrote:

> "Does one want to associate their content with -85.0,34.0 or at the
> Klaus Computing building?"
> 
> I think most(all?) people agree that co-ordinates alone shouldn't be
> the only way to tie the real world to data.
> However, you have to think in terms of how it will physically work,
> and not just the easiest way for the content creators to assign
> things.
> 
> For example; How will a device know what/where the "Klaus Computing
> building" is ?
> Surely by tieing it to that String, it would require an additional
> look up, from a government database, or another source every time a
> client needs to know. This could cause a lot of wasted bandwidth no?
> Surely its better for any "fixed" locations to be specified at
> creation time, not looked up at viewing time? You make one call to
> find out co-ordinates when your assigning content. But for every
> client looking at it, they dont need to look at the database because
> to those devices its just raw co-ordinates.
> Defining a region (like the shape of the building itself) is a good
> idea, and something being discussed too. (Although I suspect a center
> pivot point would need to be done anyway though, even in that
> scenario).Also  might be worth looking at;
> https://research.cc.gatech.edu/polaris/content/infrastructure-service
> too, which prepossess a survive for delivering infer-structure models.
> 
> For things that can't be done at all with co-ordinates (like your car
> example), we have to think of what other data to use so the device can
> get a fix on if its in view, and where it is.  My view is this pretty
> much has to be an image. Some sort of image recognition of the car,
> that can then be associated with data. It could also be a RFID, or
> another identifying technology....but that would require a physical
> change to the car, so it seems less practical.

I think this is a good example of why Rob Manson is proposing something akin to a sensor-based approach.
Although image recognition seems to be the "ground truth" for registering content to objects, that image recognition will
only likely be a part of a larger identification process.
Data communications between the vehicle will likely narrow the visual search and provide vital disambiguation information.
While unrealistic only a decade years ago, it isn't inconceivable that every object (i.e a Gillette Razor) will have a built in communication and tracking device before we
have reliable image recognition on mobile devices.
Either way, I think we have to acknowledge that image recognition always need some form of contextual aid - and that leads us to including other complementary sources in the equation.

> 
> So overall we certainly shouldn't just limit ourselves to
> co-ordinates, but we do have to consider how things will work, and try
> to avoid too many remote-calls when possible.
> 
> [/two cents]
> 
> -Thomas Wrobel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 20 August 2010 16:13, Alex Hill <ahill@gatech.edu> wrote:
>> 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
>> http://www.augmentedenvironments.org/lab
>> 

Alex Hill Ph.D.
Postdoctoral Fellow
Augmented Environments Laboratory
Georgia Institute of Technology
http://www.augmentedenvironments.org/lab