Sean Gillies wrote:
But what's the defining characteristic of these webs? Links, computationally
actionable links. Geospatial architectures have always been sparsely linked, at
least until Google Earth and KML hit the mainstream.
For convenience sake, I have no problem whatsoever using the terms
geospatial web, or geoweb. When asked, I usually offer up these defining
characteristics web-served 'standard' ((gml/wfs etc) geodata (points
vectors and polygons), easily combined with geocoded web hypermedia -
html text,, ( including rdf, and georss) and images, (jpegs etc.) ...
sometimes I suggest that realtime sensor data ought to be considered
part of a spatial web too. Open CAD data too.
Like ESRIs Arc formats, KML is problematic since it's not really open
standard geodata or hypermedia, and despite it's submission to OGC, and
Google Earth's " Geographic Web Layers', KML is really controlled
completely by one company.
Maps are not really a derining characteristic, since geoweb data will
soon be common used in a heads up cinematic view ( handheld AR, etc.)
In the end though it's all really just a bag of jargon; web, semantic
web, web2.0, geoweb, sensorweb, thingweb, cognitive web, intarweb, blah,
blah. blah,
- Mike
Cheers,
Sean
Chris Holmes wrote:
Yeah, I've dropped use of the term except when talking to those who
already know the word. I use Geospatial web or Geo Web, it's a bit more
intuitive and easy to explain, and I can use it to emphasize the parts of
SDI that I like. When I was writing a paper I ran across some other
academic paper that had 7 different definitions for SDI. It does have
some decent recognition, but those who do know what it means have
different understandings of what it is, so I don't find it all that
useful. The Geo Web to me gets at the same end goal as SDI's, but in a
bottom up instead of a top down way - which is definitely my preferred
mode.
Chris
On Fri, December 28, 2007 7:34 am, Mick Wilson wrote:
I am in the process of writing a "Why SDI?" guidebook
for non-technical middle management types and cannot help but wonder why we
put a millstone of an expression like "spatial data infrastructure" around
our necks?
As a barrier to communication with an
instant-glaze-over factor of 100% "SDI" is hard to beat. It is
simultaneously pompous and intimidating while conveying very little
information to anyone outside inner circle. The term gives little
impression of what gets done or what improves if SDI's in place. And just
how much SDI planning and development these days is about 'just' data,
compared to discussion about value-adding services, chaining, mash-ups and
the likes.
I appreciate that term is (or at least was)
technically accurate and has built up recognition over the past 10+ years,
that it's associated with well-respected individuals and organizations.
I can but wonder whether it's not worth some effort to
come up with something snappier and zingier that even my mother might have
a chance of understanding, or at least being curious about. I have no
suggestions I'm willing to make at this stage but would like to gauge the
level of in taking some of the terminology in new directions.
Cheers
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
