[georss] GeoRSS Simple Features Proposal

[Joshua Lieberman]

I did take a look at GML-SF. Holes are supported through gml:Polygon  
or gml:Surface or gml:MultiSurface (MultiPolygon is depracated in GML  
3.2+). Basically, all of the compliance levels support the same set of  
geometry types and place no more constraints on them than GML as a  
whole does.


On Apr 9, 2008, at 3:59 PM, Raj Singh wrote:

> My intention was just to match SF. If holes in polygons aren't part of
> SF we shouldn't add them. I'm also not completely sure what the use
> case for GeoRSS SF is (even though I posted the proposal). I feel I've
> heard a need for it, but I'd like to add some motivation behind it.
>
> Also, just turned comments on for that page.
> ---
> Raj
>
>
> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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