[Tdwg-tag] GML expressed in RDF

Javier de la Torre jatorre at gmail.com
Tue Jan 17 17:46:41 CET 2006


Another way to do it is through a GML Profile:

>>>From Wikipedia:
"GML profiles are XML schemas that extend Geography Markup Language
(GML) in a modular fashion. A commonly used GML profile,
geometryBasic0D1D.xsd is the only one required by many applications.
These profiles are intended to simplify adoption of GML, to facilitate
rapid adoption of the standard. The following profiles, as defined by
the GML specification, have been published or proposed for public use:
A Point Profile for applications with point geometric data but without
the need for the full GML grammar
A GML Simple Features profile supporting vector feature requests and
transactions, e.g. with a WFS
A GML profile for GMJP2 (GML in JPEG 2000)
A GML profile for RSS
Note that Profiles are distinct from application schemas. Profiles are
part of GML namespaces (Open GIS GML) and define restricted subsets of
GML. Application schemas are XML vocabularies defined using GML and
which live in an application-defined target namespace. Application
schemas can be built on specific GML profiles or use the full GML
schema set."

That will generate schemas like:
<PhotoCollection xmlns="http://www.myphotos.org"
            <name>Lynn Valley</name>
            <description>A shot of the falls from the suspension
            <where>North Vancouver</where>
                <gml:Point srsDimension="2"
                       <gml:pos>49.40 -123.26</gml:pos>

But application schemas still looks a little bit better to be able to
use all available software existing for GML.

We are working right now in an example GML application schema binding
ABCD and Darwin Core using the geospatial extension. Right now in the
emails is only Flip, Jens Fitzke (from lat/lon) and John Wieczorek.
But I hope we can come with a WFS service serving them by the end of
the week.

Is it my impressions or seems that the TDWG architecture discussion is
moving to RDF?


On 1/17/06, Roger Hyam <roger at tdwg.org> wrote:
> I just came across a couple of pages pertinent to the recent discussion
> regarding GML.
> http://danbri.org/words/2005/07/26/110
> http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/
> Among the general noise made by people in St Petersburg were the
> comments that GML as a whole was "too complex". Perhaps profiling a
> subset in RDF (especially under the umbrella of W3C) would solve several
> problems.
> Anyhow worth thinking about if we want to freely mix geographic data
> with our biodiversity data.
> What do you think?
> Roger
> --
> -------------------------------------
>  Roger Hyam
>  Technical Architect
>  Taxonomic Databases Working Group
> -------------------------------------
>  http://www.tdwg.org
>  roger at tdwg.org
>  +44 1578 722782
> -------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Tdwg-tag mailing list
> Tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag_lists.tdwg.org

More information about the tdwg-tag mailing list