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

[Joshua Lieberman]

Mike,

Ouch! Conservative? I'd like to think as a good liberal that I'm just  
conflicted between the populist pull of milions of users for 3D  
geospatial visualization and an egalitarian desire for a 3D context  
format which isn't going to zig and zag with a particular product.

Absolutely it is important to engage Google in several standards  
processes, formal and informal. Part of that conversation is  
certainly, though, to try to separate what is platform-dependent from  
what isn't. How do we standardize new and useful concepts even when  
their implementation is inconsistent with existing practice in other  
ways?

There may be no easy answers.

Josh


On Mar 6, 2007, at 4:56 PM, Mike Liebhold wrote:

>  Joshua Lieberman wrote:
>> Sean, Mike,
>>
>> Google is a member of W3C and can certainly submit anything it wants,
>> but it would be a somewhat disturbing path if W3C went directly from
>> wgs84_pos to the kitchen sink which is KML. Also, the KML placemark
>> overlaps strongly with GeoRSS tags, except that the altitude
>> semantics are strangely undefined in the placemark.
>>
> Josh,
>
> This is a fair and conservative approach. The only reason I  
> suggested W3C consideration is not necessarily because it comes  
> from Google, but because a geospatial web is still part of the  
> worldwide web, where data format governance is overlapping between   
> OGC and  W3C . Google Earth is evolving into a geoweb browser, and  
> is promoting a non-standard document format for general spatialized  
> worldwide _web_  utility. On the other hand, according to your  
> logic, maybe KML placemarks are Google application specific. In  
> that case, maybe there's no reason for OGC to pay attention either.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> It is always good to stir up more conversation on these topics and
>> the Google name can certainly do that these days. There is a
>> difference, however, between adopting something as a clearly
>> fundamental Web mechanism consistent with other standards, and
>> considering something because it comes from Google.
>>
>> --Josh
>>
>> On Mar 6, 2007, at 12:34 PM, Sean Gillies wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Mike Liebhold wrote:
>>>
>>>> Carl Reed wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "KML is fundamentally focused on Geographic Visualization - meaning
>>>> visualization of places on the earth - and annotating or describing
>>>> places. "
>>>>
>>>> Carl and epecially Josh
>>>>
>>>> Another question:
>>>> Given that KML annotation -documents-  are more web-like than
>>>> geographic, but strangely constrained;  Shouldn't Google be
>>>> invited to
>>>> submit at least those portions of KML  for  W3C  review and
>>>> standardization process?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Good question. Why not W3C?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Sean
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Sean Gillies
>>> http://zcologia.com/news
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.eogeo.org/pipermail/georss/attachments/20070306/6a58d436/attachment.html