On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Al Haraka <alhar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's completely not the "osm way" *as I interpret it* and isn't going to > fly *as long as I am around*. > > I think that is going to far, my point here is not to be negative, but to contribute something. I can imagine that people dont want to force a global model on everyone, and I agree. the current situation of tags being informally defined, partially checked by various tools and partially supported by many is also not very good. if we had at least a set of standardized rules that we could easily apply to any section of the map, that would be usable from all programs, in libs and other tools, they we would move in the right direction. I can imagine that It would not be difficult to get started with this, there are efforts already to create rdf representations of the OSM data : http://linkedgeodata.org/About The current ontology is very simple, and contains nothing more than subclass rules. http://linkedgeodata.org/vocabulary/ Lets look at what rules are important : 1. Subclassing, a B they say: a bar is an amenity. <http://linkedgeodata.org/vocabulary#bar> < http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subClassOf> < http://linkedgeodata.org/vocabulary#amenity> . 2. SubProperties, a name is a label <http://linkedgeodata.org/vocabulary#name> < http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subPropertyOf> < http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label> . 3. They have introduced some other things like usagecounts and value counts, that is what the the tagwatch should provide. So, interesting things that are missing are domain and range. Domain : You can say for example that this node is a gas stations and it has a toilet for wheelchairs. The property of "wheelchair_access" for example, would be an attribute of bathroom which is part of a public place, and a gas station is a public place. Or you can use ranges : Forest is the range of "natural" and a forest has lots of "tree" object. Other things would be more advanced, like this disaster area uses these tags for tagging this and that. Or this sat image is a subset of that image. We at least could define for example that a certain ontology file is used to validate this region of the map, you could define them individually. Also there is no one forcing validity of the documents, I am talking about a simple plugin system that would allow you to start, coupled with a way to formalize the wiki. The task of validating, modelling and using this data is still up to your user decision. I don't see anything more than a better, more customizable josm-validator plugin. In fact, it would be great to see this validator plugin be usable in more areas, for example as a simple lib that I could plug in to my programs, and have a command line access to. How many different non standard syntaxes to we have for representing rules? Every OSM tool has to re implement the different rules, has its own syntax and when something changes lags behind. mike
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
