Hi Bob,<div><br></div><div>You make several good points and I hope that this moves forward.</div><div><br></div><div>I am less thrilled about not standardizing on WGS84.</div><div><br></div><div>We have agreed to use metric and other standards and I think that</div>
<div>data expressed using other Datum's will be largely misinterpreted.</div><div><br></div><div>Arthur Chapman has convinced me that it may be impossible to</div><div>get users to upload their GPS data in WGS84, but I think that</div>
<div>it would be best if GBIF and others converted the data in regional</div><div>Datum's into WGS84 and exposed it as WGS84.</div><div><br></div><div>Encouraging the use of regional Datum's instead of WGS84 will</div>
<div>likely lead to a number of scientific mistakes.</div><div><br></div><div>I am sure your are familiar with these stories, but others on the list</div><div>may not.</div><div><br></div><div><h1><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Math error equals loss of Mars orbiter</span></h1>
<h1><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; "><a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_15_156/ai_57155808/">http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_15_156/ai_57155808/</a></span></span></h1>
</div><div><i>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 metric.</i></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; ">...</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; ">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.</span></div><div><i><br></i></div><div>- Pete</div><div><i><br></i></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Bob Morris <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:morris.bob@gmail.com">morris.bob@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">I would say its concern is somewhat narrower than the illustrations in<br>
Bricklin's <a href="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/" target="_blank">http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/</a><br>
<br>
The IETF document is a draft proposal to have "geo" be an IANA<br>
registered URI scheme. (See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_scheme" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_scheme</a>)<br>
whereas the w3 Bricklin stuff is an informal (as you observe)<br>
vocabulary.<br>
<br>
Were the IETF docment be accepted in its proposed draft form, the<br>
expression "geo:51.47026,-2.59466" would be a URI and so in RDF/XML<br>
one might see expressions like<br>
<br>
<based_near rdf:about="geo:51.47026,-2.59466"/><br>
<br>
for the example from the Bricklin document's element<br>
<br>
<based_near geo:lat="51.47026" geo:long="-2.59466"/><br>
<br>
All of that would support RDF semantic reasoning. For example, it<br>
would support the ability to axiomatize something like "If point p is<br>
in feature f, and if feature f is_near point q, then point p is_near<br>
point q".<br>
<br>
But in RDF you can't talk about resources that don't have a URI, so<br>
the IETF proposal would make it possible for geographic entities to be<br>
RDF resources. Most importantly, this would happen in such a way that<br>
one can tell when two geographic resources are the same. For example,<br>
the comparison definition in the IETF proposal specifies<br>
<a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/geo/XGR-geo-20071023/#owl" target="_blank">http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/geo/XGR-geo-20071023/#owl</a> that two<br>
points are the same if their coordinates (and a few other things) are<br>
mathematically the same. Thus, slightly oversimplified,<br>
geo:51.47026,-2.59466 and geo:51.470260,-2.59466 (note trailing 0 in<br>
lat) always designate the same resource, which is something one can<br>
only wish for in the nascent vocabulary semi-proposal, widely adopted<br>
despite Bricklin's warning that it is not in the W3C recommendation<br>
track.<br>
<br>
In summary, the IETF proposal would elevate at least points to the<br>
status of entities in their own right, as opposed to "merely"<br>
properties of some other entity.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/geo/XGR-geo-20071023/" target="_blank">http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/geo/XGR-geo-20071023/</a> goes a little<br>
farther than the Bricklin document, and identifies a need to update<br>
that document. It also<br>
provides an OWL model of the main elements of GML:<br>
<br>
"Geo OWL provides an ontology which closely matches the GeoRSS<br>
feature model and which utilizes the existing GeoRSS vocabulary for<br>
geographic properties and classes. The practical consequence is that<br>
fragments of GeoRSS XML within RSS 1.0 or Atom which conform to the<br>
GeoRSS specification will also conform to the Geo OWL ontology<br>
(front-matter aside). Thus, the ontology provides a compatible<br>
extension of GeoRSS practice for use in more general RDF<br>
contexts."--<a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/geo/XGR-geo-20071023/#owl" target="_blank">http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/geo/XGR-geo-20071023/#owl</a><br>
<br>
So the IETF proposal should be welcome as helping uniform application<br>
of Geo OWL, should it ever make it into the W3 recommendation process.<br>
Maybe Flip Dibner knows what the status of Geo OWL is.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--Bob Morris<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Peter DeVries <<a href="mailto:pete.devries@gmail.com">pete.devries@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> This appears to be a more formalized version of the current w3C geo: standard.<br>
> Which people should also be familiar with since it is widely used.<br>
> <a href="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/" target="_blank">http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/</a><br>
><br>
> - Pete<br>
><br>
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Bob Morris <<a href="mailto:morris.bob@gmail.com">morris.bob@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> TDWG should track this and consider requiring/recommending its use if it is accepted by IETF<br>
>> Bob Morris<br>
>><br>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
>> From: <<a href="mailto:creed@opengeospatial.org">creed@opengeospatial.org</a>><br>
>> Date: Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:55 AM<br>
>> Subject: [Tc] Geo URI proposal in draft stage in the IETF<br>
>> To: <a href="mailto:tc@lists.opengeospatial.org">tc@lists.opengeospatial.org</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> There is an internet draft that may be of interest to the OGC. I have<br>
>> provided some review and comments but the authors are seeking additional<br>
>> feedback. Feel free to contact the authors directly. There are GML<br>
>> examples in the document.<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-geopriv-geo-uri-01.txt" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-geopriv-geo-uri-01.txt</a><br>
>><br>
>> This document specifies an Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for<br>
>> geographic locations using the 'geo' scheme name. A 'geo' URI<br>
>> identifies a physical location in a two- or three-dimensional<br>
>> coordinate reference system in a compact, simple, human-readable, and<br>
>> protocol independent way. The default coordinate reference system<br>
>> used is WGS-84.<br>
>><br>
>> Cheers<br>
>><br>
>> Carl<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Tc mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Tc@lists.opengeospatial.org">Tc@lists.opengeospatial.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/tc" target="_blank">https://lists.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/tc</a><br>
>><br>
>> All OGC members are strongly encouraged to maintain a subscription to this list.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Robert A. Morris<br>
>> Professor of Computer Science<br>
>> UMASS-Boston<br>
>> <a href="mailto:ram@cs.umb.edu">ram@cs.umb.edu</a><br>
>> <a href="http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/" target="_blank">http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/</a><br>
>> <a href="http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram" target="_blank">http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram</a><br>
>> <a href="http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram/calendar.html" target="_blank">http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram/calendar.html</a><br>
>> phone (+1)617 287 6466<br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> tdwg-tag mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> Pete DeVries<br>
> Department of Entomology<br>
> University of Wisconsin - Madison<br>
> 445 Russell Laboratories<br>
> 1630 Linden Drive<br>
> Madison, WI 53706<br>
> ------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div>--<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">Robert A. Morris<br>
Professor of Computer Science<br>
UMASS-Boston<br>
<a href="mailto:ram@cs.umb.edu">ram@cs.umb.edu</a><br>
<a href="http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/" target="_blank">http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram" target="_blank">http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram/calendar.html" target="_blank">http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram/calendar.html</a><br>
phone (+1)617 287 6466<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>---------------------------------------------------------------<br>Pete DeVries<br>Department of Entomology<br>University of Wisconsin - Madison<br>445 Russell Laboratories<br>
1630 Linden Drive<br>Madison, WI 53706<br>------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</div>