- From: Fons Kuijk <Fons@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:45:15 +0200
- To: Jens de Smit <jens@layar.com>
- CC: Thomas Wrobel <darkflame@gmail.com>, "Seiler, Karl" <karl.seiler@navteq.com>, Andy Braun <ajbraun@gmail.com>, "Public POI @ W3C" <public-poiwg@w3.org>
Hi all, Let's try to get a consistent terminology first and make proper distinctions. What is a non-physical POI? To me any POI that has a geographical location is physical, so "the place were Lee Harvey Oswald was shot" is a physical POI to me, it is even tangible in a sense, because you can step on it with your feet. It may not have a visible entity that indicates the event that occurred there years ago, but does that make it non-physical? Not for me. The North-Pole is similar, nothing to be seen, yet it is there for sure and as physical and tangible as you can get. For me a non-physical POI does not even exist, since if it cannot be related to a location (for instance referring to the brand "Starbucks" rather than referring to the POI that relates to a coffee-shop located in Regent Street) I would rather consider it to be a COI (Concept of Interest, to give it a name) that if needed can be included in the metadata of a POI. A "null" POI as Thomas states that serves as a beacon for relative positioning of other POIs is legitimate, but for its purpose at least needs a location, hence is physical. Fons On 14-04-11 15:47, Jens de Smit wrote: > Hi, > > I'm with Thomas here that if we want to specify elaborate about the > nature of a POI, such as which brand it belongs to, we should look at > using linked data. > > A non-physical POI is useful for use cases such as "the place where > Lee Harvey Oswald was shot". However, Andy posted a second > qualification for a conceptual POI, namely something that does not > have a geographical location. I don't see a use case for that yet, but > please surprise me :) > > Jens > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Thomas Wrobel<darkflame@gmail.com> wrote: >> POIs should certainly not have to be tangable - even "null" POIs would >> have their uses as other POIs could be positioned relative to them, >> making it easy to stuff to be moved/updated together. >> >> Likewise many non-physical unity's or even concepts could be a POI >> provided they have some sort of meaningful real world location(s). >> >> I'm not keen, however, on the idea of going to far into contact >> details/buisness/chain stuff...the idea aof a "parent" of a branch of >> a store being the business franchise is completely different to the >> idea of POI having a physical locational relationship with another. >> (ie, poster POI might be positioned relatively to the bus it is on). >> >> While the first idea of "parent" is indeed usefull from a search >> perspective, it should be dealt with by existing semantic search and >> linked data solutions - as long as the POI stores metadata about it >> being a "starbucks", then its semantic relationship should be pulled >> from databases elsewhere without needing the POI standard to define >> business details at all. >>
Received on Thursday, 14 April 2011 16:04:06 UTC