RE: related standards

Hi again,

 

I'm not the best mapper I know, so I asked CrisisMappers.net and my work
colleagues about POI standards...  I thought it would be easier to pass
their comments on rather than mangling them by editing...

 

For the crisismappers, Gavin Treadgold (gt@kestrel.co.nz) asked

 

"Is this intended to build upon existing (e.g. geo) microformats? Or an
effort at a new standard? How would it work with existing POI stores
such as OpenStreetMap, or indeed our own open source POI directory
called Zenbu in NZ? <http://www.zenbu.co.nz/>

And given it is just a data standard, I assume that most of the use
cases outlined rely on having a search engine do the smart semantic work
based on the marked-up data? And what about GPX (XML) which is commonly
used to put POIs into GPS units?  And what about a taxonomy for
classification of POIs - folksonomy, or a controlled vocabulary?"

 

Snippets from colleague emails (I work in the transport section and
these comments were mostly about how people navigate) include:

 

"the usefulness of POI data could be greatly enhanced by pre-processing
to identify 'landmark' features with specific combinations of attributes
that lend themselves to use within location-based services.   At the
simplest level, this just meant identifying features that satisfied
simple feature-based topological rules: business premises at junctions
or on corners, for example.  It quickly became apparent that
simple-rules like this filter out a lot of useful landmark features."

 

"The speed of travel might also be taken into account to decide whether
a POI should be used:  Some POIs are useful for pedestrians and not for
in-car navigation.  This metadata might be recorded against the POI as a
list of appropriate 'modes': pedestrian; car; cycling; web mapping,
etc."

 

"There basically are fixed and mobile points and that interest varies
according to the context... being able to tie the POI into gazetteer
searches to be mainstream..."

 

I don't know how useful these comments are to the group, but they've
certainly given me things to think about.  And no, I don't think I've
joined the group formally yet - but I will be at the plenary on
Wednesday if anyone wants to come over and say hello.

 

Thank you,

 

 

 

 

Sj.

 

From: Alex Hill [mailto:ahill@gatech.edu] 
Sent: 01 November 2010 15:30
To: Dan Brickley
Cc: Sara-Jayne Farmer; public-poiwg@w3.org
Subject: Re: related standards

 

I think we need GML in there.

<http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/gml>

And CityGML (another application Schema for GML).

<http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/citygml>

I'd do it but I don't have my account yet.

 

On Nov 1, 2010, at 11:23 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:





On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Sara-Jayne Farmer
<sara-jayne.farmer@envitia.com> wrote:




Apologies for the stream of questions, but should GeoJson be added to
the

	related standards list?  http://geojson.org/geojson-spec.html


Good idea. I've just added it to
http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Related_Specifications

cheers,

Dan

 

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