[georss] [Mass-Market-GEO] OpenSearch Geo - Feedback

[Andrew Turner]

On 10/8/07, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
> Andrew,
> I suspect I've missed half this email thread so please excuse me if I'm
> covering old ground.

All feedback is welcome.

>
> The OGC has a Catalog specification which addresses search. It can be
> very verbose and I understand why a simpler standard would be desired.
> However, in your draft specification at
> http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/Extensions/Geo/1.0/Draft_1
> I suggest you:
>
> 1. Acknowledge the Catalog spec, (and any other related specs).
> http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/cat

I will add links to other search and aggregation specs such as CSW and
OAI-PMH. However I wouldn't expect many people to read in-depth about
them.

>
> 2. Explain why the Catalog spec doesn't suite your requirements. (Too
> verbose?)

OpenSearch has a longer history than my Geo additions. OpenSearch is
currently what "powers" Firefox's & Internet Explorer's Search bars. I
merely added "Geo" and "Time" as extensions to the existing, stable,
and very widely used spec. This will allow current users of OpenSearch
to easily add Geo search to their services and aggregation.

To this end, I used as much from other light-weight geo protocols and
implementations as made sense. This is why it nominally uses the
GeoRSS vocabulary, but WSEN bounding box definition based on KML's
assumed order in NetworkLinks and numerous other services.

>
> 3. Ideally, note how terms in your specification align with Catalog
> terms. This will ease implementation for search clients which aim to
> address both protocols.

What about the reverse? I imagine it would be more likely that someone
who uses & understands CSW may want to add OpenSearch than the
reverse.

The entire point of these specs is to make them lightweight, and
primarily, attractive & readable. It is tough enough getting a
developer to read a ~1 page HTML document, let alone downloading a
Click-Through-to-access, 204-page PDF with 5 annexes, 13 page
front-piece, and 37 pages until an actual example is given. I think
this addresses the "Too Verbose?" question above.

This isn't a fault of CSW in particular so much as an symptom of a
much (much) larger misunderstanding between Spec bodies and
propagators and down in the dirt developers who don't have 2 weeks to
read & be experts on specs just to implement a demo.

Rule of thumb when designing a spec that seeks broad adoption,
especially one that is meant to augment existing data/services - if I
can't open the spec and create a demo implementation within, say 30-45
minutes, then it's too verbose for the 80% use-case.

seems like there would be a market for OGC Spec Cliff Notes :)

Andrew




-- 
Andrew Turner
ajturner at highearthorbit.com      42.2774N x 83.7611W
http://highearthorbit.com              Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Introduction to Neogeography - http://oreilly.com/catalog/neogeography