- From: Thomas Wrobel <darkflame@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 19:32:55 +0200
- To: Jens de Smit <jens.desmit@surfnet.nl>
- Cc: "public-poiwg@w3.org" <public-poiwg@w3.org>
Just putting it "out there"; but if you could specify one anchor relative to another surely this would kill a few birds with one stone? (so you have a base pivot/location for the building, and then other things relative to that). You could then even (at some point) specify co-ordinates relative to a marker/image or other reference. On 28 October 2010 17:56, Jens de Smit <jens.desmit@surfnet.nl> wrote: > On 28/10/2010 17:46, Raj Singh wrote: >> 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. > > Yes, I was thinking along the same lines but didn't want to introduce > more food for thought in my previous e-mail. A combined lat/lon/alt > starting point with an x/y/z offset seems a very useful anchor type. > >> Can you post your suggestions to the wiki? > > I will, I just wanted to get some initial response from the mailing list > before tearing apart the wiki with my thought process. I'll probably get > around to updating it later today or else tomorrow. > > Regards, > > Jens > >
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2010 17:33:29 UTC