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

Re: Separation of Presentation from the Places/Things

From: Thomas Wrobel <darkflame@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 21:03:33 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTinqNiYzDQyHuTeSOWDs6DYM-iK9YUNo9oEu6PKh@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Seiler, Karl" <karl.seiler@navteq.com>
Cc: "roBman@mob-labs.com" <roBman@mob-labs.com>, "public-poiwg@w3.org" <public-poiwg@w3.org>
I think this goes a bit back to the early <trigger> <content> idea as that
has a nice clear separation.

In this case the trigger is the location  (by some GPS standard - not
a description), and the content is a POI. (which could be a description/name
of that location, or a 3d mesh, or any other bit of data).

The trigger can be, of course, updated completely independently of the data.
(as in the moving across the street example)

On 13 December 2010 19:38, Seiler, Karl <karl.seiler@navteq.com> wrote:

> I agree that a prime goal should be the separation of the definition of a
> POI and a location.
>
> A POI may need one or more locations to describe itself (navigation point
> x/y/z, display point center, main entrance door front, parking spots, a
> parcel area, a bounded polygon of linked X/y's, a set of navigable map
> references - link/side/spot, etc.).
>
> POI's can and do move from one location to another (closed and moved across
> the street).
>
> Locations may not always have POIs.
>
> A location can be shared by several POIs (stores in a mall).
>
> _______________________________
> Karl Seiler
> Director Location Technology & Services
> NAVTEQ - Chicago
> (T)  +312-894-7231
> (M) +312-375-5932
> www.navteq.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-poiwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-poiwg-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Rob Manson
> Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2010 9:27 PM
> To: public-poiwg@w3.org
> Subject: Separation of Presentation from the Places/Things
>
> Hi,
>
> a while back I posted a note about the Data Model coming in 2 main
> flavours[1].
>
>        1. the data describing the physical placement of the POI
>           (e.g.lat/lon/alt/x-rot/y-rot/z-rot).
>        2. the content the POI is linked to
>           (e.g. title, description, type, keywords, favicon/thumbnail,
>           3D model, etc.).
>
> Looking back at it I think I didn't quite express it correctly...but the
> idea is important and needs more discussion.  I think with point 1. I
> was really thinking about Presentation.  With point 2. I was thinking
> about the underlying Place or Thing that the POI was re-presenting.
>
> On the Data Model page there seems to be a real blurring of these 2
> types of data (e.g. "Apply some CSS-like "outer-glow: 3pt yellow;"
> effect to your POI").
>
> I think clarifying this abstraction would allow the two aspects of the
> Data Model to develop more freely and independently.
>
> NOTE: In the Mobile AR space there is a constant push for more freedom
> in the Presentation layer (just like CSS enabled with the web).  But in
> the Data Model discussion this is quite different from separation of
> Markup and Presentation.
>
> NOTE: Dynamic behaviour (e.g. scripting) may also need to be explicitly
> separated out too.
>
>
> roBman
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Data_Model#Notes
>
>
>
>
>
> The information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is
> intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above.  If you are not
> the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
> distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is
> strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error,
> please notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any
> copy of it from your computer or paper files.
>
Received on Monday, 13 December 2010 20:04:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:48:26 UTC