NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Ron,Luis made reference to use of gazetteers for place reference, or selection of an earth realm. Similarly, Simon made reference to, among others, use of the SWEET ontology (by way of reference to "convenience features"). Neither of these is common in the geosciences. We might gain some support over time by training geoscientists in the concepts of interoperability but I'm afraid that, at this time, it's not happening.
What I'm worried about here, and what I seem to be hearing is that our work to understand the abstractions is embracing the areas we're most comfortable with, and thinking those will directly transfer to other disciplines.
I could, again, be missing the point. Perhaps the comment of imposing a "geospatial viewpoint" was misplaced, but it looks to me like we're trying to tell others how they will have to represent their view of their science.
gerry Ron Lake wrote:
Gerry: While I agree with what you are saying I don't understand the references to a Gazetteer or to redefining their observation in an earth realm. Where do these requirements come from?? I think interoperating is possible if we can share common abstractions across multiple domains - it does not make sense to talk about interoperation only within one domain. So I think we are all seeking those common abstractions. To think that these all came from the geospatial community is incorrect. There is no imposition of a geospatial viewpoint that I am aware of anyways. There is an attempt to understand and represent common ideas that span multiple domains. Ron
galeon archives: