[georss] was kml reference placemarks - now KML into OGC

[Sean Gillies]

Gregor J. Rothfuss wrote:
> Carl Reed OGC Account wrote:
>> Mike et. al.
>>
>> A bit on the submission by Google of KML into the OGC process.
> 
> exciting news :)
> 
>> c.. That a new OGC public discussion list
>> (.dev) will be started for KML to allow coordination and engagement
>> with the KML developer community. 
> 
> this is very encouraging to see the OGC start to open up its process. 
> although if decisions continue to be made elsewhere, that is only a 
> half-step.
> 
>> f.. There needs to be a position paper that
>> clearly defines the problem domain that GML solves and the problem
>> domain that KML solves. I am currently in the process of putting the
>> KML reference guide into the OGC document format (including
>> maintaining all links). This document will be posted to the OGC
>> pending documents archive for discussion at the April meetings
>> sometime next week.
> 
> this will be a FAQ, i am sure. will this document be available to the 
> general public?
> 
>> Borrowing from Ron Lake and from discussions with GE staff, we think
>> KML and GML are targeted at solving different problems.  This has
>> nothing to do with complexity vs simplicity - but rather just
>> different objectives and requirements.  KML is fundamentally focused
>> on Geographic Visualization - meaning visualization of places on the
>> earth - and annotating or describing places.  It is not intended to
>> model geographic objects.  KML could even contain additional GML
>> elements.  KML, because it is connected to the description of place
>> is also (KML Search) a means of providing spatial indexing - and this
>> is being done through the Google robot.
> 
> a related question is how GeoRSS factors into all this. maybe the answer 
> is to bring some KML elements (optionally?) into GeoRSS, and vice versa.
> 
>> If anyone on this list has any
>> thoughts, suggestions, or concerns regarding the Google submission of
>> KML into the OGC process, please let me know.
> 
> i very much hope this whole process can be done in the IETF style (and 
> the georss list style): discussion AND decision on the public mailing list.
> 

Hear, hear. I'd like to be part of the discussion, and have an aversion 
to smoke-filled rooms :)

Cheers,
Sean

-- 
Sean Gillies
http://zcologia.com/news