Re: [georss] Geospatial Incubator Group

From: Josh@oklieb <josh@oklieb.net> · Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:27:05 -0400

Seems like a good point (!) at which to plug the upcoming abstracts  
deadline for Terra Cognita of July 28. Fortunately too there are  
efforts to engage the larger organizations you mention below.

Josh

On Jul 19, 2006, at 5:32 PM, Mike Liebhold wrote:

> Hi Josh,
>
> There's ample evidence that anything 'sufficiently expressive'   
> beyond  point descriptions will be sufficiently complex enough to  
> be controversial and laborius to settle. (e.g. geometry, topology,  
> and real world object descriptions.)
>
> The good news is that the Springer Book: 'The Geospatial Web - How  
> Geo-Browsers, Social Software and the Web 2.0 are Shaping the  
> Network Society' - http://en.know-center.at/geoweb/ and the  
> Ordinance Survey conference:  Terra Cognita 2006 - http:// 
> www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/partnerships/research/research/ 
> terracognita.html  are going to provoke a significant bodies of new  
> thinking on the larger problems of  spatial semantics
>
> No need to shy away from the interesting problems, let's just take  
> care of the least complex case first: setting a consensus  
> description of point cooordinates.
>
> There is a bit of urgency to move forward on this task. Although  
> Microsoft, and ESRI  and Yahoo have all announced geoRSS support,   
> Google is raging foward with  serious momentum for their own  
> approaches.  In order to prevent forking and balkanazation we need  
> to consolidate our considerable gains  asap, sufficiently to coax  
> Google to interoperate, and the others to formalize their  
> committments to a point code, and a process for normalizing more  
> complex geospatial semantic structures.
>
> Mike
>
>
> Josh@oklieb wrote:
>
>> Mike,
>>
>> What do you feel are the issues, then, in getting to adoption of  
>> point geotags or other objects? I ask because the premise of  
>> GeoRSS has in one way been that the geo:Point object was  
>> successful as far as it went but not sufficiently expressive to  
>> satisfy wider needs for geographic encoding.
>> -Josh
>>
>>
>> On Jul 19, 2006, at 2:37 PM, Mike Liebhold wrote:
>>
>>> While I am thrilled to hear of any significant efforts in  
>>> building useful spatial semantics, and extended interoperable  
>>> ontologies I am hoping we can simply focus on setting a basic  
>>> standard for coding location coordinates for waypoints, point  
>>> annotations and geocoded web objects.
>>>
>>> In my humble opinion a simple exchange of point objects is THE  
>>> foundation of a geospatial web. After that we're in for years of  
>>> debate and discussion about more complex metastructures including  
>>> various semantic, rendering and logical descriptions.
>>>
>>> So far so good. let's just keep it simple, for now. Personally I  
>>> can't wait for the real  dialogue to begin on harmonizing OWL/RDF  
>>> with GML, KML, SVG, and 18 other higher level knowledge  
>>> structures. But in the meantime will be absolutely delighted if  
>>> we can effect universal adoption of the simplest, easiest to  
>>> implement point geocodes.
>>>
>>> -Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Josh@oklieb wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is a good discussion which I would like to include in the  
>>>> geoxg  list as well. There is usually some tension between  
>>>> starting small  and creating a comprehensive foundation. In this  
>>>> case I envision that  there are plenty of tools on both the  
>>>> SemWeb and GeoWeb sides. The  small steps (e.g. GeoRSS) are  
>>>> working out how they can effectively be  combined. An OWL  
>>>> realization of the GML / 19107 feature model is  sitting out  
>>>> there as a somewhat straightforward goal, but we (at  least I)  
>>>> do not understand yet how best to enhance both sides with  this  
>>>> development.
>>>>
>>>> Josh
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 19, 2006, at 1:47 PM, Ron Lake wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree, provided you have already thought out HOW to extend  
>>>>> beyond  the
>>>>> simple stuff - since that extension will happen rather quickly.
>>>>>
>>>>> R
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Gregor J. Rothfuss [mailto:gregor@apache.org]
>>>>> Sent: July 19, 2006 10:07 AM
>>>>> To: Ron Lake
>>>>> Cc: Carl Reed OGC Account; Mike Liebhold; noiv;  
>>>>> georss@lists.eogeo.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [georss] Geospatial Incubator Group
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron Lake wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we want to build a solid foundation for geospatial  
>>>>>> extensions to
>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>> semantic web - or flipped the other way to add more semantics  
>>>>>> into  the
>>>>>> GeoWeb - how is geoRSS a foundation.  It strikes me as too  
>>>>>> limiting
>>>>>> unless you have a very restricted notion of what the Geo- 
>>>>>> Semantic Web
>>>>>> means.  I would more favour directions like an OWL encoding of  
>>>>>> GML or
>>>>>> OWL decoration of GML.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> too limiting for whom? it boils down to whether you want to  
>>>>> cater  to GIS
>>>>>
>>>>> professionals, or a couple orders of magnitude more people.  
>>>>> starting
>>>>> with something simple that fits on 2 pages of spec strikes me as a
>>>>> superior idea if you want uptake. you can always come back and  
>>>>> extend
>>>>> once people actually use the simple stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> -gregor
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> http://43folders.com/2005/09/19/writing-sensible-email-messages/
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> georss mailing list
>>>>> georss@lists.eogeo.org
>>>>> http://lists.eogeo.org/mailman/listinfo/georss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>