[georss] GeoRSS Simple Features Proposal

[Andrew Turner]

On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Martin Daly <Martin.Daly at cadcorp.com> wrote:
>  >
>  > There is no restriction of course on putting a GML feature into
>  > something like an Atom entry, either in the <Content> tag or just
>  > intercalated, as an alternative or addition to a simpler GeorssGML
>  > geometry. The CGDI Pilot also experimented with a
>  > georss:FeatureofInterest element (analogous to O&M) to include a full
>  > (GML-SF0) feature in an Atom entry, in addition to the georss:where
>  > element.

This seems entirely too complex. How is removing potential confusion
around GML-SF in where simplified by adding more arbitrary elements?

>
>  Simple being simpler than simple is fine by me.
>
>  I'm not even sure if they are disallowed at the moment in GeoRSS GML,
>  but they are never mentioned.  They are disallowed in GeoRSS Simple, and
>  the SF Proposal for GeoRSS Simple does not change this.
>
>  Disallowing holes in Simple, but allowing them in GML (as is the case
>  for GeometryCollection) seems like a reasonable compromise to me.  I see
>  no rationale in adding everything *except* holes to GML.

I think that I agree with Martin - removing confusion by having a
GeoRSS specific GML profile seems good. Just make it synonymous with
GML-SF. So if someone want's really simple, then GeoRSS-Simple,
otherwise you have GML-SF.


>
>
>
>  M
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  georss mailing list
>  georss at lists.eogeo.org
>  http://lists.eogeo.org/mailman/listinfo/georss
>



-- 
Andrew Turner
mobile: 248.982.3609
andrew at mapufacture.com 42.2774N x 83.7611W
http://highearthorbit.com Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

http://mapufacture.com Helping build the Geospatial Web
Introduction to Neogeography - http://oreilly.com/catalog/neogeography