[tdwg-tag] Fwd: [Tc] Geo URI proposal in draft stage in the IETF
p.kirk at cabi.org
Tue Jul 21 14:11:58 CEST 2009
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
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
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
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
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Bob Morris <morris.bob at gmail.com>
I would say its concern is somewhat narrower than the
The IETF document is a draft proposal to have "geo" be an IANA
registered URI scheme. (See
whereas the w3 Bricklin stuff is an informal (as you observe)
Were the IETF docment be accepted in its proposed draft form,
expression "geo:51.47026,-2.59466" would be a URI and so in
one might see expressions like
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,
would support the ability to axiomatize something like "If point
in feature f, and if feature f is_near point q, then point p
But in RDF you can't talk about resources that don't have a URI,
the IETF proposal would make it possible for geographic entities
RDF resources. Most importantly, this would happen in such a way
one can tell when two geographic resources are the same. For
the comparison definition in the IETF proposal specifies
points are the same if their coordinates (and a few other
mathematically the same. Thus, slightly oversimplified,
geo:51.47026,-2.59466 and geo:51.470260,-2.59466 (note trailing
lat) always designate the same resource, which is something one
only wish for in the nascent vocabulary semi-proposal, widely
despite Bricklin's warning that it is not in the W3C
In summary, the IETF proposal would elevate at least points to
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
farther than the Bricklin document, and identifies a need to
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
geographic properties and classes. The practical consequence is
fragments of GeoRSS XML within RSS 1.0 or Atom which conform to
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
of Geo OWL, should it ever make it into the W3 recommendation
Maybe Flip Dibner knows what the status of Geo OWL is.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Peter DeVries
<pete.devries at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> - 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
>> feedback. Feel free to contact the authors directly. There
>> examples in the document.
>> This document specifies an Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
>> geographic locations using the 'geo' scheme name. A 'geo'
>> identifies a physical location in a two- or
>> coordinate reference system in a compact, simple,
>> protocol independent way. The default coordinate reference
>> used is WGS-84.
>> Tc mailing list
>> Tc at lists.opengeospatial.org
>> All OGC members are strongly encouraged to maintain a
subscription to this list.
>> Robert A. Morris
>> Professor of Computer Science
>> ram at cs.umb.edu
>> phone (+1)617 287 6466
>> tdwg-tag mailing list
>> tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
> 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
Department of Entomology
University of Wisconsin - Madison
445 Russell Laboratories
1630 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706
Find out about CABI's global summit on 'Food security in a climate of change' at www.cabiglobalsummit.com
19 - 21 October 2009, London, UK.
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 prohibited.
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 15960 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-tag/attachments/20090721/4ce7d4c0/attachment.jpg
More information about the tdwg-tag