NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Hi Gerry and Ron,My purpose was not to say that we must use gazetteers. Sorry if this was misunderstood. When I read metadata I found the name of the "ultimate" feature of interest in places like keywords or in the description (or abstract), so this is common but is not machine readable. And, of course the geographic place could be calculated by the location of the observation.
The result of the observation or the observing procedure could contain the semantics about the result ( profile,station etc..). So, I find the feature of interest a good place to put the name of a place or the earth realm. The former could link to other information about that place ( e.g. economic data, history, events, etc.. ). About the later, within OOSTethys we just say that the feature of interest is a "body of water". Using earth realms will help connect different domains in more semantic fashion, but its not the only way to do it.
Agreeing on data/observation representation models among groups like Galeon, OOSTethys, CSML and SWE should be the first priority in the agenda. For example how to represent an observation result within SWE that conforms to the well define CSML feature types ?
Not need to worry about gazetteers and earth realms, for the moment. -Luis On Mar 14, 2008, at 9:14 AM, Gerry Creager wrote:
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
galeon archives: