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

Re: WG Objectives - A Personal Take

From: Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:03:41 +1100
To: "public-poiwg@w3.org" <public-poiwg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1288134221.6942.242.camel@robslapu>
Cool...now we're getting into the detail! 8)

Based on the threads from Marco/Raj/Dan/Thomas/Christine/Carl/Gary it
seems like it would be really useful to break the work into several
abstract levels.

Some of these seem like they are already under way but I think it would
be great if we could agree as a group what a high-level overview is.

For example:

        - use cases
        What uses are we aiming to cover and for the fuzzier one's which
        we are NOT aiming to cover.
        
        - data model
        From my experience and the discussions here this seems to be in
        two main flavours.  First the data describing the physical
        placement of the POI (e.g. lat/lon/alt/x-rot/y-rot/z-rot).
        Second the content the POI is linked to (e.g. title,
        description, type, keywords, favicon/thumbnail, 3D model, etc.).
        NOTE: These are just indicative and are not meant to be a
        complete or limiting set.  Just a reference for discussion.
        
        - expressions
        The different serialisation formats that the use cases will use
        to embed or represent the data model (e.g. JSON, XML, HTML,
        XHTML, RDFa, UF, BCP[1], etc.)


>From here it seems like it would be easier to isolate specific
discussions and debates and then relate them back to an overall
framework.

It could also allow us to dive much deeper into each of these specific
aspects when needed.

So please +1 or -1 this as a very preliminary first step.  And I'd love
to hear what people think is missing from this at either the "abstract
level" layer or at the "description/discussion" layer.

As for the Use Cases...a lot of the initial discussions I've seen so far
have left me wondering how specific examples may fit into a POI model.
Some of them are much more oriented to NFT and object
recognition/overlays and then that leads me back to my rant about
Patterns of Interest...but don't get me started on that 8)


roBman


[1] Where BCP = Binary Carrier Pigeon




On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 16:38 +0200, Marengo Marco wrote:
> Hi,
> +1 to extensibility. I think our goal as a W3C WG is to try to provide a recommendation which facilitates the distribution of point of interest information. Just as RSS did in other contexts: from news sharing to podcasting... that's a success story.
> 
> I've been thinking of a definition of POI, starting from Carl Reed's input:
> 
> "Point of Interest (POI): A location (with a known position at a certain time) where one can find a place, product or service, typically identified by name rather than by address and characterized by a URI, which may be used as a reference point or a target in a location based service request, e.g., as the destination of a route."
> 
> And this is imho the smallest subset of information which can describe a POI (this is built on top of Gary Gale's contribution):
> 
>         1. A centroid (latitude, longitude)
>                         in a widely adopted  system (e.g. WGS 84)
>         2. An extent (described either by a vector set or by an MBR)
>         3. A category / type
>                         possibly referring to a Place Ontology. Otherwise every POI Provider will define its own vocabulary
>         4. A URI
>         5. An address (although the larger the place the less meaningful this becomes)
>                         although the address may be really generic, as highlighted by Carl Reed
>         6. Contact information (if applicable)
>                          using a widely adopted standard (e.g. OMA CAB, or whatever standard we agree upon)
> 
> We should also suggest a set of extensions, which will cover (hopefully) all the use cases that we want to support.
> 
> Marco
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Il giorno 26/ott/2010, alle ore 15.23, Seiler, Karl ha scritto:
> 
> > Right, the key term here is extensibility.
> >
> > In defining the base / core attributes shared by most POIs our goal should be to make it easy for data to participate in the standard:
> >
> > Name (can range from legal name, chain/brand name, to doing-business-as name) - I recommend for the base attribution we try to define what a "common use" name is
> >
> > Location (this can range from a single point in the center of the building, to an address, to street geometry, to multiple locations to describe a place, to...) - I recommend making this as simple as a X/Y of the center point, and an optional (official) address
> >
> > Contact (this can range from phone, to URL, to lists of contacts) - Probably the minimum is an optional phone number
> >
> > Type (this can range from high level - is a business vs. a landmark, to industry standard business descriptors, to emerging models, to open ended hierarchical tagging) - I recommend we consider one or more existing business classification standards and not try to reinvent
> >
> > A universal ID would be very nice addition to the Core / Base attributes if possible...
> >
> > Beyond that the key to me is to define an open-ended way to define the richness of the world of places that enhances system to system use/reuse while maintaining ease of compliance.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________
> > Karl Seiler
> > Director Location Technology & Services
> > NAVTEQ - Chicago
> > (T)  +312-894-7231
> > (M) +312-375-5932
> > www.navteq.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: member-poiwg-request@w3.org [mailto:member-poiwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Christine Perey
> > Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 11:19 PM
> > To: Raj Singh; public-poiwg@w3.org
> > Cc: Carl Reed; gary.gale@nokia.com; member-poiwg@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: WG Objectives - A Personal Take
> >
> > +1 to what Raj wrote.
> >
> > Today's POI definition does not fit all evolving use cases.
> >
> > Keywords:
> >
> > - extensible
> >
> > - encoding standard
> >
> > - covers "stationary POI" (what I call the "fixed POI") as well as
> > non-stationary (probably needs another name to say "everything that can
> > be a trigger for an AR experience")
> >
> > +1+1 on
> >
> >> Basically, the same ethic that underlies HTML and Atom.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Christine
> >
> > Spime Wrangler
> >
> > cperey@perey.com
> > mobile +86 132 6171 6195
> > VoIP (rings in Beijing) +1 (617) 848-8159
> > Skype (from anywhere) Christine_Perey
> >
> > On 10/25/2010 7:30 PM, Raj Singh wrote:
> >> I like this definition of POI (and not just because I'm also on OGC staff!). However, I also see that it will not fit all the evolving use cases in this group.
> >>
> >> I'd like to see us create an extensible POI encoding standard, such that very simple things--such as a stationary POI--can be encoded very simply and more complex things can still be encoded, but can also still be partially understood by software designed for the simpler markup. Basically, the same ethic that underlies HTML and Atom.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Raj
> >> The OGC: Making location count...
> >> http://www.opengeospatial.org/contact
> >>
> >>
> >> On Oct 22, at 9:36 PM, Carl Reed wrote:
> >>
> >>> Gary -
> >>>
> >>> The OGC has a standard titled, "Open Location Services Core". That standard was originally developed by a number of OGC Members and continues to be enhanced and extended. The key Members involved were/are NavTeq, Hutchison 3G, ESRI, MobileMapping, Image Matters, Webraska, Intergraph, MapInfo, Oracle, Autodesk, ERDAS (now part of Hexagon), Tele Atlas, and DeCarta and then agreed to by the OGC Membership. In that document, there is a definition of POI as an abstract data type. Perhaps this can be a "strawman" definition.
> >>>
> >>> Point of Interest (POI): A location (with a fixed position) where one can find a place, product or service, typically identified by name rather than by address and characterized by type, which may be used as a reference point or a target in a location based service request, e.g., as the destination of a route.
> >>>
> >>> Now of course since this definition was agreed to in the OGC, there is the perhaps the issue of mobility to be considered.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>>
> >>> Carl
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From:<gary.gale@nokia.com>
> >>> To:<member-poiwg@w3.org>
> >>> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 5:48 AM
> >>> Subject: WG Objectives - A Personal Take
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi everyone,
> >>>
> >>> Here's my take on what I'd like to see coming out of the group ...
> >>>
> >>> 1) a definition of what actually constitutes a POI
> >>> 2) following on from the previous definition ... what the difference is, if any, between a POI and a Place
> >>> 3) what basic attributes and metadata should be utilized in order to define a POI/Place
> >>> 4) how to articulate that definition and set of attributes in terms of best practice
> >>> 5) how to showcase and encourage innovative uses of POI data
> >>>
> >>> Best
> >>>
> >>> G
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Gary Gale
> >>> Director, Ovi Places Registry, Nokia Gate5 GmbH
> >>> Invalidenstr 117, 10115 Berlin, Germany
> >>> UK: +44.7508.000336 | DE: +49.1515.5150909
> >>> gary.gale@nokia.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> 
> 
> Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.
> 
> This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 26 October 2010 23:04:24 UTC

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