geo:lat, geo:long in neogeo

Hi Josh,

http://mapbureau.com/neogeo/neogeo.owl now includes geo:lat, geo:long.

-- Chris


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joshua Lieberman" <jlieberman@traversetechnologies.com>
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: "chris goad" <chris@platial.com>; "Mike Liebhold" <mnl@well.com>; 
<public-xg-geo@w3.org>; <member-xg-geo@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 6:58 AM
Subject: Re: Geospatial XG telecon - 21 June


> Dan,
>
> Fair enough, I need to post the draft Note this week which will  explain 
> the neogeo concepts a bit more clearly. The serialization  should be the 
> same as GeoRSS, so the examples there should be useful  (which we also 
> need to expand).
>
> Chris, what do you think about adding in geo:lat and geo:long to  neogeo 
> for "backwards compatibility", at least for now? There will  presumably be 
> a mixed reaction, but compatibility would be useful as  long as we clearly 
> indicated how the properties are being defined in  the context of the 
> newer ones.
>
> The immediate question is what to do past this week once the  incubator 
> expires. Should we continue with experimentation through  georss.org or 
> SWIG? Others have supported establishing a GWIG  (geosemantic web interest 
> group), but it clearly needs canvassing of  support to go forward. In 
> particular, we need a vibrant forum if we  are going to formulate any 
> Recommendation level work such as the  geospatial relationship markup 
> language (GRML?) that Mike and I have  discussed.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --Josh
>
> On Jun 19, 2007, at 9:31 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
>>
>> Joshua Lieberman wrote:
>>> Chris,
>>> Glad you'll be able to join on Thursday. The incubator's charter 
>>> expires next Saturday, so we have to get neogeo ensconced  somewhere and 
>>> figure out if / how to propose a geosemantics  interest group as a 
>>> follow on.
>>> There has been plenty of discussion about geo:lat and geo:long.  With 
>>> due respect to Dan for being a pioneer here, the consensus  has 
>>> generally been that a different vocabulary would more clearly  mark a 
>>> transition to feature-based tags.
>>
>> I'm plenty fine with a new vocab being created. I was more  concerned 
>> with potential for non-backwards-friendly changes, than  with standing in 
>> the way of progress. The point of doing the SWIG  vocab was to do the 
>> tinyest thing we could possibly have done in  RDF geo space while still 
>> being useful. It's time to go a bit  deeper :)
>>
>>
>> We could certainly, however, add them as feature
>>> properties to neogeo and express the assertion that taken together  they 
>>> also should be considered to map to the general feature model  with 
>>> point geometry in the same way as georss:point. Is this  valuable? It 
>>> would be useful feedback, of which we have not gotten  very much to 
>>> date.
>>
>> Sounds plausible to me, but I don't know neogeo well. Perhaps we  could 
>> get some test instance data together? And experiment with 
>> transformations (using SPARQL, XSLT, whatever, ...).
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Josh
>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Friday, 22 June 2007 00:29:09 UTC