[Geowanking] geo microformat BOF session at Where 2.0

Edward Mac Gillavry emacgillavry at hotmail.com
Wed Jul 6 01:57:32 PDT 2005


Hmmm... Let's get us back on track, shall we? This list is about GEOwanking. 
But maybe being a cartographer I don't get the importance/relevancy of the 
discussion so far. I agree, there is a chance for yet another representation 
of location to emerge with the geo microformat. Therefore I'm happy this 
thread receives some attention as I think there are many ways in which we 
can contribute to a geo microformat.

However, before going into the implementation, e.g. XML/RDF/SomethingElse, 
what have we come up with so far in our previous discussions? Should the geo 
microformat focus on point locations only? Because that's what seems to be 
the main approach: how to structure an address and translate that into a 
point location? However, I seem to remember people on this list have 
realised it's useful to represent area features as well. While we're at it: 
polylines? Should we give an indication of accuracy, spatial precision?

A geo microformat may be good in giving this topic some visibility outside 
the circle of the usual suspects. While the geo microformat is for a 
specific domain, we can make people aware of the broader context so the geo 
microformat is not built for that specific domain only but may have a wider 
application.

Edward


>From: "Steven Citron-Pousty" <scitronpousty at esri.com>
>Reply-To: geowanking at lists.burri.to
>To: <geowanking at lists.burri.to>
>Subject: RE: [Geowanking] geo microformat BOF session at Where 2.0
>Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 21:41:44 -0700
>
>This whole argument reminds me of Web Services (ala SOAP, UDDI...) versus 
>REST. In certain situations you need all the functionallity that Web 
>Services has to offer but it's hard to beat the simplicity of REST. I 
>understand the benefit of RDF but it is certainly not as simple to grok as 
>plain old xml.
>Just an observation, besides, with RDF how will they fit those transmitters 
>on a web page. Wait a second did I miss a letter there or something?
>Steve
>
>________________________________
>
>From: Mattias Konradsson [mailto:mattias at globalvillage.nu]
>Sent: Tue 7/5/2005 7:57 PM
>To: geowanking at lists.burri.to
>Subject: RE: [Geowanking] geo microformat BOF session at Where 2.0
>
>
>
> > The problem with XML formats is that you have to write a new
> > parser for every single one.
> >
> > XML abstracts out the syntax. RDF abstracts out the grammar.
> > You still can understand parts of the document even if you
> > don't recognize some specific words.
> >
> > -j
>
>I'd say you have about the same problem with rdf as with xml formats. If 
>you
>don't have a known vocabulary/schema than you don't know exactly how to
>parse information. Rdf isn't more understandable per se than a xml
>structure, quite the opposite sometimes.
>
>I don't want to bash rdf but really it's hard to come up with any concrete
>advantages of rdf vs xml. If anyone can come up with a concrete example
>where's thats the case then please go ahead. IMO it's more about semantics
>than actual usability.
>
>The problems don't lie in what format you use but how well you model your
>data for maximum flexibility and a minimum of ambiguity, and that they 
>arent
>too many different standards within the same area.
>
>best regards
>--
>Mattias Konradsson
>
>"GlobalVillage - world domination or major procrastination"
>http://www.globalvillage.nu/mattias
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Geowanking mailing list
>Geowanking at lists.burri.to
>http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
>
><< winmail.dat >>
>_______________________________________________
>Geowanking mailing list
>Geowanking at lists.burri.to
>http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking





More information about the Geowanking mailing list