Re: Little Maps of the US

My suggestion would be to have a .NWS and a .NOAA top level domain of datasets 
through which geospatial data could be represented and bound with all websites, 
which would contain localized geospatial information of their own (eg: 
 CompanyLocales, Location, etc,).   A .FEMA datset could then communicate with 
the .NWS and .NOAA datasets and generate a proactive list of resources 
identified by companies with a presence on the web, a type of free-market 
infrastructure toward problem-solving among weather-related events. Tie in a 
.DOE TLD for Dept. of Energy and there's the century's energy solution in a 
nutshell (or dataset :)
 
Michael A. Norton
 




________________________________
From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
To: Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com>
Sent: Fri, August 27, 2010 12:51:23 PM
Subject: Re: Little Maps of the US


If it was done consistently, as below, then no.

Two problems here, first, browsers cache so it's best to use links to the data 
set rather than the data set itself.  Second, you want to bind the distribution 
to the dataset as firmly as possible to avoid having people strip off the 
"header" (the distribution's property set).

What I'm working toward is a list of "Little Map" points with a link for each 
point to:
Weather (working on this now)
Sunshine (I have a spreadsheet and javascript from NOAA)
Ports (incl. Airports) - UN/LOCODE (The last I counted, DHS has 8 different 
systems, none of which tie into web mapping) 

Suggestions ???

--- On Fri, 8/27/10, Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com> wrote:


>From: Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: Little Maps of the US
>To: "Gannon Dick" <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
>Date: Friday, August 27, 2010, 2:16 PM
>
>
>Is this the kind of mashup you frown upon with regard to NWS data?
> 
>Michael A. Norton
> 
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
 From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
>To: Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Fri, August 27, 2010 12:14:42 PM
>Subject: Re: Little Maps of the US
>
>
>Yes.
>
>As I understand it, (for the Little Maps example) ...
>
>One Distribution has one Dataset, one distribution date and one dataset date
>
>or alternatively
>
>One Distribution has one Dataset (with a date column), one distribution date and 
>one dataset date range 
>
>
>--- On Fri, 8/27/10, Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>From: Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com>
>>Subject: Re: Little Maps of the US
>>To: "Gannon Dick" <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
>>Cc: public-egov-ig@w3.org
>>Date: Friday, August 27, 2010, 1:25 PM
>>
>>
>> 
>>Still a bit foggy here.   A query would reference the dcat:distribution element 
>>for the timestamp but an inference of the dataset would follow along with it, 
>>yes?  And the dcat:distribution timestamp would reference when the dataset was 
>>distributed rather then when the actual event (eg: raining, snowing) occurred?
>> 
>>Michael A. Norton
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________
 From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
>>To: Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com>
>>Cc: public-egov-ig@w3.org
>>Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 8:53:57 PM
>>Subject: Re: Little Maps of the US
>>
>>This relates to (sort of):
>>ISSUE-43 (abstract_dataset): attach specific properties to dcat:Distribution and 
>>not to dcat:Dataset [dcat]
>>
>>although that is a more general case.
>>
>>Two Mash-Ups of weather on geography, one for today and one for yesterday would 
>>be two dcat:Distribution or manifestations.  The common properties between the 
>>distributions would only be the geo properties which are fixed in time.  You 
>>could still figure out (where it rained|snowed|etc.)[Dataset] and  
>>(when)[Distribution date property].  This is the normal thing you do when 
>>designing a Data Base, but it's not always so obvious what is best.  If you 
>>wanted to get a list of noon day temperatures at a place for a year, another 
>>design (without the required 365 dcat:Distribution(s)) might be better.
>>
>>There are always going to be query optimizations, but putting the meta 
>>properties in one place (attached to Distribution) is a best practice, I think.  
>>Make sense ?  
>>
>>
>>--- On Thu, 8/26/10, Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>From: Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com>
>>Subject: Re: Little Maps of the US
>>To: "Gannon Dick" <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
>>Cc: public-egov-ig@w3.org
>>Date: Thursday, August 26, 2010, 8:49 PM
>>
>>Gannon: "IMHO, the RDFa meta data should not include the 'Weather' parameters  
>>themselves."
>> Why not?
>>Michael A. Norton 
>>
>>From: Gannon Dick
>><gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
>>To: Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com>
>>Cc: public-egov-ig@w3.org
>>Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 1:11:50 PM
>>Subject: Re: Little Maps of the US
>>
>>
>>--- On Wed, 8/25/10, Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Is this anywhere near the kind of data NWS utilizes in mapping meteorological 
>>data?
>>
>>Yes, as a matter of fact ...
>>
>>But let me back up just a little: The "Little Maps" are a grid point subset.  
>>The meta data is assumed constant, and it changes so slowly that that assumption 
>>is valid.  Weather observations and Forecasts are a time dependent Mash-Up. This 
>>topic is a huge subject of controversy at the moment, because a person's 
>>location is a similar type of Mash-Up. This debate runs counter  to the  
>>Scientific Method since there is no reason to believe that observations are 
>>reproducible and computable with sound semantic principles.  This sort of 
>>thinking will get us both burned at the stake in Advertising Departments, Mr. 
>>Norton :o)  
>>
>>
>>The NWS has a beta
>>test of XML available, as well as some XSL transforms (which I have not had a 
>>good look at).  It would not be too difficult to add a Weather link to the 
>>"Little Map".  IMHO, the RDFa meta data should not include the "Weather" 
>>parameters themselves.
>>
>><http://www.weather.gov/alerts-beta/>
>>
>>
>>-- Gannon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>      
>>
>>
>>      
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>      
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>
>