- From: Seiler, Karl <karl.seiler@navteq.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 08:23:40 -0500
- To: "cperey@perey.com" <cperey@perey.com>, Raj Singh <rsingh@opengeospatial.org>, "public-poiwg@w3.org" <public-poiwg@w3.org>
- CC: Carl Reed <creed@opengeospatial.org>, "gary.gale@nokia.com" <gary.gale@nokia.com>, "member-poiwg@w3.org" <member-poiwg@w3.org>
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.
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2010 12:31:54 UTC