[tdwg-tag] Fwd: [Tc] Geo URI proposal in draft stage in the IETF
John R. WIECZOREK
tuco at berkeley.edu
Tue Jul 21 15:09:31 CEST 2009
Let me add, however, that there are very few contributors of data who
would be able to make the transformation between spatial reference
systems. Could you? It's not trivial. Therefore I think it far
preferable for contributors to publish what they know with confidence,
including "datum unknown". Let services make the transformations while
leaving the original untouched.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 5:11 AM, Paul Kirk<p.kirk at cabi.org> wrote:
> and it appears NASA still hasn't learnt it's lesson ...
> From: tdwg-tag-bounces at lists.tdwg.org
> [mailto:tdwg-tag-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Peter DeVries
> Sent: 21 July 2009 12:56
> To: Bob Morris
> Cc: Technical Architecture Group mailing list;
> tdwg-geospatial at lists.tdwg.org
> Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] Fwd: [Tc] Geo URI proposal in draft stage in the
> Hi Bob,
> You make several good points and I hope that this moves forward.
> I am less thrilled about not standardizing on WGS84.
> We have agreed to use metric and other standards and I think that
> data expressed using other Datum's will be largely misinterpreted.
> Arthur Chapman has convinced me that it may be impossible to
> get users to upload their GPS data in WGS84, but I think that
> it would be best if GBIF and others converted the data in regional
> Datum's into WGS84 and exposed it as WGS84.
> Encouraging the use of regional Datum's instead of WGS84 will
> likely lead to a number of scientific mistakes.
> I am sure your are familiar with these stories, but others on the list
> may not.
> Math error equals loss of Mars orbiter
> NASA reported Sept. 30 that it had lost the $125 million Mars Climate
> Orbiter because the force exerted by the orbiter's thrusters remained in the
> system of units based on pounds and feet rather than being converted to
> In 1985, he notes, controllers calculated distance in feet rather than
> nautical miles and inadvertantly pointed a mirror on the space shuttle
> Discovery away from Earth instead of toward a laser on Hawaii's Mauna Kea.
> - Pete
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Bob Morris <morris.bob at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I would say its concern is somewhat narrower than the illustrations in
>> Bricklin's http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/
>> The IETF document is a draft proposal to have "geo" be an IANA
>> registered URI scheme. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_scheme)
>> whereas the w3 Bricklin stuff is an informal (as you observe)
>> Were the IETF docment be accepted in its proposed draft form, the
>> expression "geo:51.47026,-2.59466" would be a URI and so in RDF/XML
>> one might see expressions like
>> <based_near rdf:about="geo:51.47026,-2.59466"/>
>> for the example from the Bricklin document's element
>> <based_near geo:lat="51.47026" geo:long="-2.59466"/>
>> All of that would support RDF semantic reasoning. For example, it
>> would support the ability to axiomatize something like "If point p is
>> in feature f, and if feature f is_near point q, then point p is_near
>> point q".
>> But in RDF you can't talk about resources that don't have a URI, so
>> the IETF proposal would make it possible for geographic entities to be
>> RDF resources. Most importantly, this would happen in such a way that
>> one can tell when two geographic resources are the same. For example,
>> the comparison definition in the IETF proposal specifies
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/geo/XGR-geo-20071023/#owl that two
>> points are the same if their coordinates (and a few other things) are
>> mathematically the same. Thus, slightly oversimplified,
>> geo:51.47026,-2.59466 and geo:51.470260,-2.59466 (note trailing 0 in
>> lat) always designate the same resource, which is something one can
>> only wish for in the nascent vocabulary semi-proposal, widely adopted
>> despite Bricklin's warning that it is not in the W3C recommendation
>> In summary, the IETF proposal would elevate at least points to the
>> status of entities in their own right, as opposed to "merely"
>> properties of some other entity.
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/geo/XGR-geo-20071023/ goes a little
>> farther than the Bricklin document, and identifies a need to update
>> that document. It also
>> provides an OWL model of the main elements of GML:
>> "Geo OWL provides an ontology which closely matches the GeoRSS
>> feature model and which utilizes the existing GeoRSS vocabulary for
>> geographic properties and classes. The practical consequence is that
>> fragments of GeoRSS XML within RSS 1.0 or Atom which conform to the
>> GeoRSS specification will also conform to the Geo OWL ontology
>> (front-matter aside). Thus, the ontology provides a compatible
>> extension of GeoRSS practice for use in more general RDF
>> So the IETF proposal should be welcome as helping uniform application
>> of Geo OWL, should it ever make it into the W3 recommendation process.
>> Maybe Flip Dibner knows what the status of Geo OWL is.
>> --Bob Morris
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Peter DeVries <pete.devries at gmail.com>
>> > This appears to be a more formalized version of the current w3C geo:
>> > standard.
>> > Which people should also be familiar with since it is widely used.
>> > http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/
>> > - Pete
>> > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Bob Morris <morris.bob at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> TDWG should track this and consider requiring/recommending its use if
>> >> it is accepted by IETF
>> >> Bob Morris
>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> >> From: <creed at opengeospatial.org>
>> >> Date: Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:55 AM
>> >> Subject: [Tc] Geo URI proposal in draft stage in the IETF
>> >> To: tc at lists.opengeospatial.org
>> >> There is an internet draft that may be of interest to the OGC. I have
>> >> provided some review and comments but the authors are seeking
>> >> additional
>> >> feedback. Feel free to contact the authors directly. There are GML
>> >> examples in the document.
>> >> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-geopriv-geo-uri-01.txt
>> >> This document specifies an Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for
>> >> geographic locations using the 'geo' scheme name. A 'geo' URI
>> >> identifies a physical location in a two- or three-dimensional
>> >> coordinate reference system in a compact, simple, human-readable, and
>> >> protocol independent way. The default coordinate reference system
>> >> used is WGS-84.
>> >> Cheers
>> >> Carl
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Tc mailing list
>> >> Tc at lists.opengeospatial.org
>> >> https://lists.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/tc
>> >> All OGC members are strongly encouraged to maintain a subscription to
>> >> this list.
>> >> --
>> >> Robert A. Morris
>> >> Professor of Computer Science
>> >> UMASS-Boston
>> >> ram at cs.umb.edu
>> >> http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/
>> >> http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram
>> >> http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram/calendar.html
>> >> phone (+1)617 287 6466
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> tdwg-tag mailing list
>> >> tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
>> >> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag
>> > --
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Pete DeVries
>> > Department of Entomology
>> > University of Wisconsin - Madison
>> > 445 Russell Laboratories
>> > 1630 Linden Drive
>> > Madison, WI 53706
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>> Robert A. Morris
>> Professor of Computer Science
>> ram at cs.umb.edu
>> phone (+1)617 287 6466
> Pete DeVries
> Department of Entomology
> University of Wisconsin - Madison
> 445 Russell Laboratories
> 1630 Linden Drive
> Madison, WI 53706
> P Think Green - don't print this email unless you really need to
> The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it
> is confidential and is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If
> you are not the intended recipient please note that any distribution,
> copying or use of this communication or the information in it is
> Whilst CAB International trading as CABI takes steps to prevent the
> transmission of viruses via e-mail, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail or
> attachment is free from computer viruses and you are strongly advised to
> undertake your own anti-virus precautions.
> If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail
> at cabi at cabi.org or by telephone on +44 (0)1491 829199 and then delete the
> e-mail and any copies of it.
> CABI is an International Organization recognised by the UK Government under
> Statutory Instrument 1982 No. 1071.
> tdwg-tag mailing list
> tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
More information about the tdwg-tag