I agree. there are a number of tools that can interpret the geo: standard and it is not as if the alternatives are more accurate.
I never understood why this issue is any different that having people standardize on meters.
The issue of error can be dealt with with the addition of another field.
I think a better solution might be easy-to-use tools that let groups convert their records to geo:lat and geo:long before submitting them.
- Pete
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 10:01 AM, joel sachs jsachs@csee.umbc.edu wrote:
All,
When representing observation records in RDF, there are advantages to using Dublin Core and Geo (http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#) namespaces where possible. For example, if we use DC:date, and geo:lat, geo:long, instead of DwC:eventDate, DwC:lat, and DwC:long, then Linked Data browsers can automatically map the records, plot them on a timeline, etc.
My question is: What are the disadvantages to doing this? (For example, is this going to break someone's DwC validator?)
Thanks - Joel.