[georss] kml reference placemarks v/ georss?

[Pat Cappelaere]

Josh,

I see those formats as equivalent and could be selected by the user.
For instance, user would make a wfs-b request to eo1.geobliki.com and would
specify GeoAtom/GML or GeoAtom/KML somehow.
These extensions would be to the content.
I do not think it would hurt the WFS-B effort, quite the contrary!

Pat.  


> From: <josh at oklieb.net>
> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:11:33 -0500 (EST)
> To: Pat Cappelaere <pat at cappelaere.com>
> Cc: Raj Singh <raj at rajsingh.org>, <georss at lists.eogeo.org>
> Subject: Re: [georss] kml reference placemarks v/ georss?
> 
> Pat,
> 
> In thinking of the relative roles of these formats, they do overlap in
> providing "featureness" to information, but have quite different intents
> and strong points. GeoAtom is a light and very specific "news about"
> format, while KML is very close to OWS Context in being able to contain a
> lot of information about setting up Google Earth (or similar blue marble
> applications), including something close to full features as Gregor et al
> point out. Not surprising given some of the GML genes it carries.
> 
> One interesting characteristic of Atom is that there is both an atom:link
> to the Web resource being reported on, and an atom:content for more
> involved or specialized HTML / XML representation. Various ideas are being
> tested for using the atom:content element, including inline GML or WFS
> requests/filters. KML is yet another possibility to represent in a more
> specialized form (but processable by both Google Earth and Google Search)
> what GeoAtom is providing news about.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Josh
> 
>> Raj,
>> 
>> +1
>> What do you have in mind?  How would a KML-enabled RSS feed look like?
>> We might want to show some examples on the site.
>> Pat.
>> 
>> 
>>> From: Raj Singh <raj at rajsingh.org>
>>> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 02:06:27 -0500
>>> To: <georss at lists.eogeo.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [georss] kml reference placemarks v/ georss?
>>> 
>>> disclosure: I'm on OGC staff and right in the middle of the KML->OGC
>>> process
>>> 
>>> On Feb 22, 2007, at 1:18 PM, Sean Gillies wrote:
>>>> A little KML in the atom:content elements of my GeoRSS feeds won't
>>>> hurt
>>>> anybody, and gets me by until we have a standards-based index.
>>> 
>>> I think that's the right way to think about this.
>>> 
>>> And one crucial point that I think a lot of people miss is the legal
>>> intellectual property aspect. Bringing KML into OGC isn't just about
>>> what features end up in that XML format. It's just as much about
>>> making sure the format is royalty-free to use forever. We all know
>>> the Google mantra is "don't be evil" (and the people I know there
>>> completely live up to the mantra), but OGC standardization means you
>>> don't have to take their word for it.
>>> 
>>> So by standardizing KML in OGC, even if people don't get all the
>>> features in there they may like to see, at least you will know you
>>> can build innovative applications and information services around KML
>>> without fear of getting a cease-and-desist in the mail some day.
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> Raj
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>> 
>