- From: Mike Liebhold <mnl@well.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:32:54 -0700
- To: "Josh@oklieb" <josh@oklieb.net>
- CC: georss@lists.eogeo.org, GeoXG GeoXG <public-xg-geo@w3.org>
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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >
Received on Thursday, 20 July 2006 14:26:21 UTC