[georss] Geospatial Incubator Group
Mike Liebhold
mnl at well.com
Wed Jul 19 18:47:06 EDT 2006
Agreed, a sensor web will be built on well crafted meta semantic
processes.meanwhile, any sensor data might simple be expressed as text,
with a simple georss point code.
-Mike
Ron Lake wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> This (MS example) would already seem to be an application that
> requires a lot more than the expression of point location.
>
>
> R
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* georss-bounces at lists.eogeo.org
> [mailto:georss-bounces at lists.eogeo.org] *On Behalf Of *Mike Liebhold
> *Sent:* July 19, 2006 3:35 PM
> *To:* Josh at oklieb; GeoXG GeoXG; georss at lists.eogeo.org
> *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 at 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 at 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 at apache.org]
>>>>>
>>>>>Sent: July 19, 2006 10:07 AM
>>>>>
>>>>>To: Ron Lake
>>>>>
>>>>>Cc: Carl Reed OGC Account; Mike Liebhold; noiv; georss at lists.eogeo.org <mailto:georss at 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 at lists.eogeo.org <mailto:georss at lists.eogeo.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>http://lists.eogeo.org/mailman/listinfo/georss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>_______________________________________________
>
>georss mailing list
>
>georss at lists.eogeo.org <mailto:georss at lists.eogeo.org>
>
>http://lists.eogeo.org/mailman/listinfo/georss
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.eogeo.org/pipermail/georss/attachments/20060719/17b07c9c/attachment.html
More information about the georss
mailing list