Re: [georss] Geospatial Incubator Group

Mike -

Worse in the case of MS SenseWeb - they do not as yet use any international standards at all (IEEE, ISO, OGC). GeoRSS may not be the best solution for sensor networks as there is no ability to define the characteristics of the sensor, the characteristics of the observation, time, and so forth.

But, if one only wants a simple point location and an "unknown" observation value with no related metadata, then GeoRSS could be used.

The OGC members along with the IEEE and a number of other organizations have been working hard on standardized approaches (and related standards) for providing a framework upon which sensor networks can be built. Check out the new OGC Sensor Web White Paper for a high level overview of this work.  http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=15540&version=2&format=pdf

Carl
 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mike Liebhold 
  To: Josh@oklieb ; GeoXG GeoXG ; georss@lists.eogeo.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 4:34 PM
  Subject: Re: [georss] Geospatial Incubator Group


  a quick clarification: i'm not suggesting abandoning the simple approach to vectors, using coordinate pairs in geoRSS, but suggesting that, for the time being, we limit 'scope creep' of the geoRSS spec. in favor of refining the spec to date, for fast track adoption by the OGC, W3C and the Big Guys who are setting off in forking directions

  This is really a critical moment where the Big Guys are jockeying for position, using data structures for advantage in our space.

  Case in point: Microsoft SenseWeb is an amazing project showing mashedup MS livemaps with raltime data from D.O.T. road sensors, samll weather stations, web cams, and user hosted sensors of all kinds. Although an ideal geoRSS case,  senseweb is -not- georss, and exactly the kind of application that could go viral, just like google maps, and google earth setting another big company down a forked path.


  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
          

        _______________________________________________
georss mailing list
georss@lists.eogeo.org
http://lists.eogeo.org/mailman/listinfo/georss


  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  georss mailing list
  georss@lists.eogeo.org
  http://lists.eogeo.org/mailman/listinfo/georss