POI data model

I changed centroid to anchor and made a new section for listing types of anchors. We can worry about the extensibility mechanism later. 

Jens, I worry about anchors that only have 2D or 3D grid references within a building. It seems to me much harder to ensure interoperability and "linked data" without a common geographic reference. Maybe every space can at least have a geographic anchor for the enclosing building, then use a local grid reference system (x,y,z) to go from the building's anchor to the individual space.

Can you post your suggestions to the wiki?

---
Raj
The OGC: Making location count...
http://www.opengeospatial.org/contact


On Oct 28, at 8:46 AM, Jens de Smit wrote:

> On 27/10/2010 20:09, Raj Singh wrote:
>> I made a page for the data model discussion:
>> http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Data_Model
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> Thanks Raj for writing this down, this gives us something to start a
> discussion from. It seems you based your list primarily on Marco's
> "smallest subset if information which can describe a POI" which in turn
> was based on Gary's contributions. However, one thing Marco also
> mentioned as being important was "extensibility"; I'd like to agree with
> that and propose to make a significant change to the data model along
> the following lines:
> 
> Replace "centroid" by a more flexible "anchor" (terminology subject to
> discussion) property which describes where in the world the POI belongs.
> This anchor property should have an attribute/subtype that specifies how
> its data should be interpreted. A lat/lon/alt in WGS84 type anchor seems
> to be a very obvious anchor type to define, but the following anchor
> types come to mind as well:
> 
> - x,y locations on a 2D grid/ x,y,z locations on a 3D grid
> Use case: situations where lat/lon/alt are impractical, such as in
> buildings where dimensions are usually measured in meters. Much easier
> and faster authoring
> 
> - fiducial markers or images
> Use case: Augmented Reality experiences obviously, but could also be
> applied to virtual worlds
> 
> - buildings
> Use case: again, easier authoring than looking up lat/lon coordinates
> for everything you want to describe. Also, it conveys a string
> connection between the POI and the real-world entity that is being
> described. This allows for smarter and nicer user interfaces; for
> example see
> http://www.perey.com/ARStandards/Nokia_A_Web_Services_Platform.pdf by
> Nokia's Petros Belimpasakis et al for some functional AR examples of
> tying POIs and buildings together, but the same usability holds for maps
> and virtual worlds.
> 
> - dynamic entities
> Use case: wouldn't it be neat to describe a car or person as POI? As
> computer vision improves, computers can track and recognize more and
> more of the world around us. The AR use case is again obvious, but what
> if you could dsignate your favourite football player as a POI? Apply
> some CSS-like "outer-glow: 3pt yellow;" effect to your POI, link it to
> the WebTV stream you're watching and you'll never lose track of him again.
> 
> 
> So the last example is a bit futuristic and probably won't be part of
> the first spec but I hope it conveys why I think having a flexible (and
> extensible) "anchor" property would be better than hardcoding a centroid
> for each point. All the other properties that have been written down
> (except perhaps address) are useful for any of these use cases which is
> why I would really like this flexibility in the spec.
> 
> Looking forward to your opinions!
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jens
> 
> Also, this list is not exhaustive and I welcome other suggestions as well.
>

Received on Thursday, 28 October 2010 15:46:33 UTC