I'm not even sure there is yet an implementation of anything more than points - so worry about over-complication is a bit premature.
The other point to make here is that geoRSS is somewhat of a convenient misnomer. Adding consistent geotags to RSS / ATOM may be the lowest hanging fruit at present, but our further intent is a simple and ubiquitous way to add geotags to all sorts of "other" content. I frankly expect that 95% of the usage for the geoRSS tags will be points and boxes in geoRSS Simple which can be recognized and processed wherever they occur, much like (US) telephone numbers and zip codes. The pattern I see from the other direction, is that geoRSS can be a way to connect specialized geospatial information systems into mainstream information exchanges with their combination of a bit of metadata and a link back not only to a more complex datastore, but also to the processing capabilities (e.g. clients) for that more complex data. News readers and aggregators are unlikely ever to deal with multi-polygon operations and topology, nor should they. That shouldn't prevent mainstream users from having a way "in" to Web GIS if they have a need and interest. --Josh On Mar 21, 2006, at 11:41 AM, Raj Singh wrote: > I've been meaning to respond to this too. I completely agree that > the "big" > message for the GIS-centric crowd is to stop trying to control the > information encoding. Unlike most geospatial data formats, we > intentionally > assumed that this would always be part of a more complete schema, > and we > trust the other schema authors to take care of everything but > geography. > > This is why I don't share Ron's worry about geoRSS getting out of > hand. The > geo part won't get out of hand because it will always stay the same, > blithely encoding points, lines and polygons. People might go wild > using > geoRSS in all kinds of domains, but I don't see anything to worry > about > there. > > --Raj > > On 3/21/06 11:17 AM, "Carl Reed OGC Account" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> I totally concur! Very eloquently stated. >> >> Carl >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Schuyler Erle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>> * On 20-Mar-2006 at 9:53AM PST, Kralidis,Tom [Burlington] said: >>>> >>>> True. For me, I would stick with keeping "data" out of GeoRSS. I >>>> wouldn't want to see GeoRSS evolve into something where we start >>>> adding bits for data types, etc., then have things quite bloated >>>> and >>>> added ad hoc, as Ron notes. >>> >>> I think there is a philosophical divide that the GeoRSS effort has >>> been trying to bridge. >>> >>> On one hand, there are those of us who have been doing GIS and >>> cartography for years, have come to the web through it, and tend to >>> see data attributes as something you add to location. >>> >>> On the other, you have folks like me, who have been doing web for >>> years, and have come to GIS (aka "geo" aka "locative media" aka >>> "geowanking") through it, and tend to see location as something >>> to add >>> to other data. >>> >>> The two counterpoints in the GeoRSS discussion -- the W3C Geo >>> predicates versus GML -- exemplify, I think, this philosophical and >>> historical difference. The result, even in its somewhat bifurcated >>> form, is fundamentally an agreement to understand and accept geodata >>> syndicated from either philosophical direction. >>> >>> I think that this is a huge cultural victory and the participants in >>> the discussion have every right to be proud. >>> >>> SDE >> >> _______________________________________________ >> georss mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://lists.eogeo.org/mailman/listinfo/georss > > > _______________________________________________ > Geowanking mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
