Hi Bob,
Yes an estimate of the precision / extent should be recorded by the original observer.
This has been repeated several times and it is interesting that even TDWG did not incorporate this into their data collection.
What I was proposing was a specific extension to the ietf proposal for occurrence records.
It adds something very similar to pointRadiusSpatialFit to a latitude and longitude.
By standardizing on the significant digits we gain something even before there is general software support for this standard.
That records with "geo:41.53000000,-70.67000000;u=100" are an equivalent URN, while.
"geo:41.53000000,-70.67000000;u=100" and "geo:41.53,-70.67;u=100" are not
That allows those records to be linked within a triple or quadstore.
As in this earlier example:
Without doing anything other than standardizing on the number of digits, occurrences attached to the same GPS reading are linked in both a triple store and a google search.
Where as software needs to be written that interprets "geo:41.53000000,-70.67000000;u=100" and "geo:41.53,-70.67;u=100" as equivalent.
Try Googling "geo:44.86294500,-87.23120400;u=10"
If the
ietf.org standard is supported in future versions of Virtuoso and other tools then we would not need to include the redundant use of geo:lat geo:long for the dynamic maps.
- Pete
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Bob Morris
<morris.bob@gmail.com> wrote:
Your arguably reasonable recoding of the geo uri's of your example illustrates an issue on which so much metadata is silent: provenance. Once exposed, it is probably impossible for someone to know how the uncertainty (or any other data that might be the subject of opinion or estimate) was determined and whether the data is fit for some particular purpose, e.g. that the species were observed near each other.
"Note: The number of digits of the values in <coordinates> MUST NOT be interpreted as an indication to the level of uncertainty." The section following is also interesting, albeit irrelevant for your procedure. It implies that when uncertainty is omitted (and therefore unknown), then "geo:41.53000000,-70.67000000" and "geo:41.53,-70.67" identify the same geo resource.
Bob Morris
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Peter DeVries
<pete.devries@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
5) I added in my proposed "area" so that it is easy to see what species were observed near each other. Since there was no measure of radius in these longitude and latitudes I made the radius 100 meters.
Normally I would estimate the radius for a GPS reading to be within 10 meters but some of these observations were made where the GPS reading was taken and the readings were given only to two decimals.
Area = long, lat; radius in meters following the ietf proposal but with the precision of the long and lat standardized example "geo:41.53000000,-70.67000000;u=100"
[...]
--
Robert A. Morris
Emeritus Professor of Computer Science
UMASS-Boston
100 Morrissey Blvd
Boston, MA 02125-3390
Associate, Harvard University Herbaria
email:
morris.bob@gmail.com
web:
http://efg.cs.umb.edu/web:
http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPushhttp://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram
phone (+1) 857 222 7992 (mobile)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pete DeVries
Department of Entomology
University of Wisconsin - Madison
445 Russell Laboratories
1630 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706
TaxonConcept Knowledge Base /
GeoSpecies Knowledge BaseAbout the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
------------------------------------------------------------