[georss] kml reference placemarks v/ georss?

[josh at oklieb.net]

WFS = Web Feed Service...

Of course, there were fewer than 100 million users when MS started
wielding their user base to push people around, so private ecosystem is
not entirely apt. That said, it still appears easy enough to transform
from GeoRSS to KML to OWSContext to whatever someone tags their page with.
Only one of those is actually set up to express the relationship between
content and geometry (the former), so we'll see if GeoRSS / NeoGeo proves
useful or if all anyone ever needs is text + pushpin flyby search.

There is at least a good faith intention to seek standards recognition of
KML and we'll thereby / also see if some form of it becomes stable enough
for others to build on, or if it continues to be an expression mainly of
Google Earth preferences and capabilities.

Josh

> There are many feeds already out there are already using KML. In fact,
> some
> of the feeds are like little, tiny WFSs.
>
> Hmmm, build it and they will come?
>
> Jeff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: georss-bounces at lists.eogeo.org
> [mailto:georss-bounces at lists.eogeo.org]
> On Behalf Of Allan Doyle
> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 2:09 PM
> To: georss at lists.eogeo.org
> Subject: Re: [georss] kml reference placemarks v/ georss?
>
> This is where my libertarian tendencies come to the fore. In the end,
> it comes down to the fact that what matters is what people use. The
> more people use it, the more "standard" it is.
>
> Now, if we're forced to use it, then I get upset. Ada. JMTK. GOSIP.
> Microsoft Office to apply for government contracts. .E00 files on
> taxpayer funded websites. Those things bug me.
>
> But in this case, Google decided to use KML in what could be
> considered to be a private ecosystem. We're not forced to use it, as
> Andrew points out. So I'm comfortable with that. I'm even happy that
> it's causing some decent discussion and may open up the door to some
> very cool applications that may wind up becoming very independent of
> Google. Google has published a definition of KML along with a schema.
> That's pretty open.
>
> In fact, how is Google's definition and promotion of KML really
> different from our definition and promotion of GeoRSS? Should we have
> started at OGC? To me the answer is a resounding "no".
>
> On Feb 22, 2007, at 13:32, Andrew Turner wrote:
>
>> On 2/22/07, Mike Liebhold <mnl at well.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  I'm wondering what impact on georss adoption, will be from google
>>> and
>>> michael jones advocacy ( below) for using   "kml reference
>>> placemarks" as
>>> standard format for located geo information.
>
> Now back to Mike's question. From my personal point of view, it comes
> back to my libertarian view. Which is better? KML or GeoRSS? Well,
> whichever is better depends on who you are and what you want to do.
> If the world becomes a better place because KML turns out to work
> better than GeoRSS for some things, that's great. In fact, the world
> could become a better place even if KML does not work "better" in
> some sense of the word yet completely squashes GeoRSS. As long as the
> squashing is because people were allowed to vote with their feet, I'm
> fine with it. If it's because suddenly some bureaucrat somewhere
> decides to legislate KML "in" and GeoRSS "out", then there could be a
> problem.
>
>>
>> This seems to be a case of a company that is almost a monopoly using
>> that monopoly to push it's own standard. Sounds like other well known
>> large corporations...
>
> There's probably less of a monopoly here than we might think. Sure, I
> never use search engines other than Google but (a) they exist and (b)
> no one is prevented from building their own. Just look at the bots in
> your web server logs if you ever need confirmation that many people
> are operating search engines.
>
>>
>> Anyways, Mapufacture for one is doing essentially what KML search
>> does, but for GeoRSS (currently), and soon other standards & formats.
>> You can search for items or feeds, and you can even use Firefox search
>> bar integration (go to mapufacture.com and look at the pop-down of the
>> search bar options)
>>
>> So it's definitely in the ability for small groups/companies to pick
>> up and properly use web standards,
>
> "properly" is pretty relative... defining our own spec comes pretty
> close to some people's definition of improper, I bet. That being
> said, GeoRSS needed to be developed, no doubt about it. It's to our
> credit that we tried to fit into the slipstream of "proper web
> standards".
>
>> we just don't get as much press or
>> the interviews. ;)
>
> Exactly. And it's very cool that we've come as far as we have. I
> think this community has done a very good job of coming together to
> provide a very good, usable spec.
>
> 	Allan
>
>>
>> Andrew
>> _______________________________________________
>> georss mailing list
>> georss at lists.eogeo.org
>> http://lists.eogeo.org/mailman/listinfo/georss
>
> --
> Allan Doyle
> +1.781.433.2695
> adoyle at eogeo.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> georss mailing list
> georss at lists.eogeo.org
> http://lists.eogeo.org/mailman/listinfo/georss
>
> _______________________________________________
> georss mailing list
> georss at lists.eogeo.org
> http://lists.eogeo.org/mailman/listinfo/georss
>