[georss] Geospatial Incubator Group
Mike Liebhold
mnl at well.com
Wed Jul 19 18:54:46 EDT 2006
I meant to add, sensor data could be expressed as text in a standard web
object, viewable within a web browser. Later on. client app
communities can evolve standard, high level semantics for processing
sensor data.
Mike Liebhold wrote:
> 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/20060719/3eddf693/attachment.html
More information about the georss
mailing list