I know it sounds shocking but you can make you ontology as simple as you want, and you can have as many as you want. There does not need to be only one set of rules, I can defined them for my own little bit of the map and others can use them.
the point is that you can define your terms formally and check them. mike On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Tom Hughes <t...@compton.nu> wrote: > On 11/03/10 22:50, Graham Jones wrote: > > I have not the faintest idea what that means, but it sounds impressive! >> Please add it to the list, but it would be nice to define some of the >> terms and abbreviations to help the ignorant like me! >> > > Sounding impressive is not a valid reason to consider something a good > idea... Basically he's suggesting replacing our current freeform tagging > with some complicated system of rules and ontologies. > > It's completely not the "osm way" and isn't going to fly. > > Tom > > -- > Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) > http://compton.nu/ >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
