[georss] GeoRSS Simple Features Proposal

[Joshua Lieberman]

There is already a simple and tightly constrained GML profile for  
georss - gmlgeorss
( http://www.georss.org/xml/1.1/gmlgeorss.xsd ) which is being used  
informally in other places and will be published as a best practice at  
the next TC. It does not, by the way, include holes:

<!-- This profile restricts polygons to one exterior ring and no  
interior rings -->

There is not a single "GML-SF", there are three different compliance  
levels and more geometry options than most users of georss are aware  
of or prepared for.

Georss SImple is defined as a shortcut for the present GeoRSS GML  
definitions. If GeoRSS is just a tag + GML, that definition is lost.

Nonetheless, specialized users are interested in putting other forms  
of GML into Atom, etc. The notes below were simply advice on how it  
might be done. I'm not averse myself to having a GML-SFL1-2-3 form of  
GeoRSS, just not by getting rid of what is already there for good  
reason. I also noted in my earlier email that more complex geometries  
usually need to be associated to a particular type of feature in order  
to be made sense of (e.g. multi-points -> sampling locations for an  
average measurement).

--Josh

On Apr 9, 2008, at 11:39 AM, Andrew Turner wrote:

> 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