Geo and Time Extension Schemas
Tie
OpenSearch on my current project. Does anyone know where the schemas
for these extensions are? Any information you can provide would be
appreciated.
Andrew Turner
written up as a proposed OGC "Best practice" and may be schema'd
there.
If you wanted to write up a draft of them - especially -Time since no
one is yet working on that part - it would be most appreciated.
Andrew
Jo Walsh
I'm not sure if this is what you mean by schema, but here's the Geo
draft as it stands on opensearch.org -
http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/Extensions/Geo/1.0/Draft_1
I worked on a discussion draft to be submitted to the Open Geospatial
Consortium, which has some small changes from the original:
- a "relation" element added, which provides for simple geometric
queries (within, overlaps, disjoint)
- the "geometry" element contains Well Known Text, which allows one to
specify complex polygons
The draft is here, aiming to become officially an OGC discussion draft
in the summer, and then I'll send Andrew patches to the version on the
opensearch site.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dctb97jj_0jnxzwd4s&hl=en
As for the time extension, we have used it but I don't think it has
the same amount of acceptance, and I would be interested to hear about
others' usage or about alternatives.
http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/Extensions/Time/1.0/Draft_1
Can you tell us more about your project? :)
cheers,
jo
--
DeWitt Clinton
http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/Extensions/Geo/1.0/Draft_2
Please feel free to go ahead and make any proposed edits right there (and please add your name as an author at the bottom). I'll update the site to default to Draft 2 once edits are made.
Once the OSG work is complete we can replace the page on the opensearch.org site with a link to the official standard.
Andrew, does this plan make sense, or is it easier for you to make the edits yourself?
-DeWitt
LeVan,Ralph
> the same amount of acceptance, and I would be interested to hear about
> others' usage or about alternatives.
>
http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/Extensions/Time/1.0
> /Draft_1
The library of congress has a nice extension to ISO 8601. It supports
ambiguity and pre-Christian Era dates. They have a good writeup on the
problems they were trying to solve with it as well as their proposed
solution.
http://www.loc.gov/standards/datetime/
Ralph
Jo Walsh
> please add your name as an author at the bottom). I'll update the site to
> default to Draft 2 once edits are made.
Okay that's great, thankyou.
It occurred to Andrew that perhaps Tie meant an XML schema, like the
one found here:
http://lastfmapi.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lastfmapi/lastfmlib/trunk/lastfmlib/src/jaxme/OpenSearch.xsd?view=markup
I'm not sure how this would be useful to OpenSearch client developers,
but it would probably reassure the OGC to see one, so I can look at
making one in the nearish future.
thanks,
jo
--
DeWitt Clinton
http://www.loc.gov/standards/datetime/extendedDateTime.xsd
-DeWitt
Andrew Turner
> Jo, very cool. I just copied the original Draft 1 over to Draft 2:
>
> Please feel free to go ahead and make any proposed edits right there (and
> please add your name as an author at the bottom). I'll update the site to
> default to Draft 2 once edits are made.
>
> Once the OSG work is complete we can replace the page on the
> Andrew, does this plan make sense, or is it easier for you to make the edits
> yourself?
to make sure the best ideas come out.
Jo - can you summarize for this list what the proposed updates/
modifications are?
>
> -DeWitt
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 6:51 AM, Jo Walsh <metaz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > <tmje...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I have been looking to utilize the geo and time extensions for
> > > OpenSearch on my current project. Does anyone know where the schemas
> > > for these extensions are? Any information you can provide would be
> > > appreciated.
>
> > I'm not sure if this is what you mean by schema, but here's the Geo
> > draft as it stands on opensearch.org -
>
> > I worked on a discussion draft to be submitted to the Open Geospatial
> > Consortium, which has some small changes from the original:
> > - a "relation" element added, which provides for simple geometric
> > queries (within, overlaps, disjoint)
> > - the "geometry" element contains Well Known Text, which allows one to
> > specify complex polygons
>
> > The draft is here, aiming to become officially an OGC discussion draft
> > in the summer, and then I'll send Andrew patches to the version on the
> > opensearch site.
> >http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dctb97jj_0jnxzwd4s&hl=en
>
> > As for the time extension, we have used it but I don't think it has
> > the same amount of acceptance, and I would be interested to hear about
> > others' usage or about alternatives.
>
Jo Walsh
> to make sure the best ideas come out.
The changes are aimed at providing more power to spatial queries while taking
advantage of database capability that anyone answering these spatial
queries is likely to have on the backend (PostGIS, etc).
- a "relation" element added, which provides for simple geometric
queries (within, overlaps, disjoint)
- the "geometry" element contains Well Known Text, which allows one to
specify complex polygons
The latter replaces a tuple string format from the earilier version,
but one could feel free to support it for backwards compatibility reasons
and we should mention this. This element is for specialists anyway,
most queries will use the simpler geo:box search area, This is
basically my request after prototype implementation.
The former is a subset of the OGC Simple Features Interface. It has
been requested by several people. It would be extremely useful when
you have data sets at different scales for an area and you can't infer
the level of detail that is being asked for.
That is about it, most of that proto OGC draft is boilerplate and layout.
cheers,
jo
--