Re: related standards

+1 for metadata indicating appropriate context

On Nov 1, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Sara-Jayne Farmer wrote:

> 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
>  

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