ISSUE-14: Are we needlessly reinventing? Don't other standards cover this?
reinventing-the-wheel?
Are we needlessly reinventing? Don't other standards cover this?
- State:
- RAISED
- Product:
- Core FPWD
- Raised by:
- Matt Womer
- Opened on:
- 2011-05-11
- Description:
- From: roBman@mob-labs.com
Date: Tue May 03 05:56:14 2011
Archived: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poiwg/2011May/0002.html
[[
Otherwise are we really just re-inventing or revisiting the type of work
started in geojson[1], etc?
[1] http://wiki.geojson.org/GeoJSON_draft_version_6#Specification
]]
From: roBman@mob-labs.com
Date: Thu May 05 00:02:25 2011
Archived: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poiwg/2011May/0021.html
[[
As I see it...at the heart of it all is the centroid[3]/extent[4]
separation where the centroid/point is the origin Location for the POI.
On top of that can be mapped or projected zero or more extents or
models.
So the centroid or point seems to map pretty clearly to the existing
Location models (e.g. gml:Point, geo: etc).
Then the extents seem to map clearly to the existing data models for
"other types" of geometries that are relatively common. Here are the
KML and geojson terms just to list two.
]]
(assigned to Matt)
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: 'geo:' URIs (from jens@layar.com on 2011-06-28)
- 'geo:' URIs (from alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at on 2011-06-27)
- ISSUE-14 (reinventing-the-wheel?): Are we needlessly reinventing? Don't other standards cover this? (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2011-05-11)
Related notes:
No additional notes.
Display change log