[georss] GeoAtom (split from Re: GeoRSS Location References)

[Sean Gillies]

Allan,

I like "Atom Spatial Location Extension" better than "GeoAtom".
Compatible, of course, with the important bits of GeoRSS 1.0: location
and geometry. Any of us that are interested should take it to the Atom
syndication group for feedback:

http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/NonWorkingGroupDrafts

BTW, I think the georss.org domain is the right home for new relation
URIs. I was only using atlantides.org as an example (under my control).

Cheers,
Sean

Allan Doyle wrote:
> Having skimmed through all of this thread, I wonder whether it might  
> make more sense to leave GeoRSS where it is and call the next thing  
> GeoAtom?
> 
> Funny how GeoRSS is following the tortured development path that RSS  
> did (is?).
> 
> Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, or something like that.
> 
> And, note that I'm liking the thread, I'm not against forward motion.  
> I'm just concerned about what could wind up being a pretty confusing  
> progression of speclets, all under the same name, otherwise.
> 
> 	Allan
> 
> 
> On Mar 30, 2008, at 11:18 PM, Raj Singh wrote:
>> I'd love to get the location references issue decided soon. We've been
>> sitting on this stuff too long. So let me summarize what I think is
>> out there right now.
>>
>> Andrew proposed a couple options -- http://georss.org/proposals/external_geometry
>>  -- that preserved some of the GeoRSS language in the link (either
>> <where> or the geometry element).
>>
>> Josh and Sean support a strategy that's a more generic, universal way
>> of handling external references (see quoted text below) by working
>> with <atom:link>.
>>
>> This leaves me with 2 questions:
>> 1) Sean, does your proposal only work with Atom? Do we care?
>> Personally, I'm for dropping support of all the other "legacy" RSS
>> formats.
>>
>> 2) Is there any important advantage for software to know a little
>> about what the referenced link will contain prior to dereferencing it?
>> If so, then Andrew's ideas where you still have a <where>, <point>,
>> <line> or <polygon> is useful.
>>
>> If the answer to #2 is not really, which I think it is, then I'm a big
>> +1 on going with something like what's shown at http://atlantides.org/trac/concordia/wiki/AtomLocationByReference
>> .
>>
>> ---
>> Raj
>>
>>
>> On Mar 28, 2008, at 8:03 PM, Sean Gillies wrote:
>>> More specifics here:
>>> http://atlantides.org/trac/concordia/wiki/AtomLocationByReference
>>>
>>> Sean Gillies wrote:
>>>> I'm -1 on that one (origin:
>>>> http://lists.eogeo.org/pipermail/georss/2007-November/001752.html,
>>>> IIRC). -0 on the first, which is more of an interesting idea than
>>>> something we should start implementing now.
>>>>
>>>> I think some standard link relations (ala
>>>> http://lists.eogeo.org/pipermail/georss/2007-November/001755.html)
>>>> might
>>>> do the trick.
>>>>
>>>> Sean
>> _______________________________________________
>> georss mailing list
>> georss at lists.eogeo.org
>> http://lists.eogeo.org/mailman/listinfo/georss
>