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

[Joshua Lieberman]

There are a couple of alternatives. For the particular issue of  
referencing an authoritative feature, georss:featurename is  defined  
as a qualified name so that a knowledgeable client could fetch  
whatever representation is needed. Although atom:link is somewhat less  
implementation-free than that, organizing rel and category schemes on  
georss.org is a powerful and simple approach for many purposes, as  
long as we can come up with a minimal and well organized "scheme of  
schemes" for that. I hope to make some suggestions along that line  
this week and put them up on the web site for consideration.

Once they are documented and accepted on georss.org, an IETF RFC isn't  
a bad idea, but we really should include the (really) basic spatial /  
spatiotemporal relations as well which weren't tackled in the W3C.

--Josh

On Mar 31, 2008, at 11:48 AM, Andrew Turner wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Sean Gillies <sgillies at frii.com>  
> wrote:
>> 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:
>>
>
> Agreed, while I don't think we should bend backwards to support RSS -
> we have to be cognizant of education/understanding of these proposed
> extensions. I imagine many (most?) developers don't know the
> difference between RSS & Atom or care much - since so far there has
> been little reason for them to have to "choose" one.
>
> Sean, is your suggestion that we roll up these potential GeoRSS
> modifications into an IETF RFC?
>
>> 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).
>
> Just a reminder, 'Anyone' can have an account on GeoRSS.org and add/ 
> edit pages.
>
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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