New to the group

[JohnStamey]

I heard about GolfML a while back. I see there is little activity.
Why? I saw the examples of using SportsML and it looks quite clumsy
when GolfML could be so nicely streamlined and used by a 15 billion
dollar industry. Can you fill me in?

[Pierre Mareschal]

Hi,

Welcome to the GolfML group! We are 2! You and me!

I don't know where you've heard of the GolfML before, that's a project
I just started this spring!

About me:
GOLF: I'm a beginner golfer. I started last year. I now shot regularly
under 100 from the front tees. I'll back up to the back tee when I'll
shot 90 regularly. I play once a week + practice + lesson.
COMPUTER and XML: I have 20+ years of IT experience, especially in
databases, data models, and XML (and related technologies). I also
have a lot of experience in web technologies, interface design and
usability. I'm a Mac user. I hate PCs.

As I explain on GolfML home page, I want to make a format for Golf
data exchange. I haven't worked on it for a few days, but I'll restart.
I have not released anything, because I wanted at least someone else
to have a look at it before I release it.

I have a list of golf applications (recent, not old stuff still
hanging there) and web sites that might be interested.
I also wrote a "welcome" mail, ready to be sent to these golf
applications and web sites.

I'm not a native English speaker, so the text might need reviewing.

Could you please introduce yourself also. Tell me about your golf,
your computer skills and what got you here.

If you can, please review the text in the wiki, grab some example,
make some data from real golf course, and when we'll have a few more
example and agree on overall structure, I'll send the email to
potential users.

Best regards,

Welcome to the GolfML group.

Pierre

Le 05-juin-08 à 13:27, JohnStamey a écrit :

[John Stamey]

Pierre, THank you for the email.

 

About three years ago, there was GolfML on the SportML.com website. Apparently they tried to combine golf (and all other sports) into one big language and, as far as I am concerned, it is a complete and utter failure! Golf is so specialized, that lumping it in with baseball and football and the like (of team competitive sports) cannot possibly work.

 

I am a professor at Coastal Carolina University in the Department of Computer Science and have been a golfer all my life. I am very interested in this project for a number of reasons.

 

Earlier today, I roughed out some things that I believe would work for GolfM - at least for reporting tournaments. I will get these typed up and sent to you over the weekend. Pleast take a look at what I have put together and let's discuss and think before we send something out on this. We have a chance to make a real impact on everything here.

 

So where are you located? I am in Myrtle Beach, SC (the Golf Capital of the World as it is called - 131 courses in just over 200 square miles. 

 

It would be nice if we could chat by phone, as well about this. Let me know and I look forward to speaking with you.

 

John Stamey

[Pierre Mareschal]

Hi John,

I'm in Pennington, New Jersey, until Aug. 20. My wife is on a temporary work assignment here, and we are going back home (Belgium) in late August.

I discovered golf last year, take lessons once a week and go to practice as much as I can. I try to play once or twice a week (all weather). Golf is very addictive!

I read a lot on the subject also. I'm a physicist and I am fascinated by golf technology.

New jersey is about 80% of the size of Belgium (both inhabitants and surface). There are 330+ golf course in New Jersey. We have about 40 to 60 in Belgium...

I live less than 5 miles away from this golf complex (2x18 holes + 9 holes par 3). I hope I'll be able to play back home. But golf is a lot more expensive over there.

Here, I pay $20 for a really nice public course green fee. Over there, there is nothing under $100-$150 a round. I'm not sure I'll be able to play as much.

As far as XML goes, I'm also a scuba diver, and participated to the UDFC/UDDF  file format. Technically speaking, I prefer to define a XML Schema, because it is more precise, and there are now numerous tools to check if a document conforms.

It is very interesting that you mention golf tournament. I have no experience in that field, and I simply created "shells" (wrapping) entities from golf tournament. Of course, I follow golf on television, and on pgatour, I have some idea on what/where to store, but nothing precise.

On the other hand, for individual scores, I have some idea of what I want to track, stats I want to get, etc. To record my rounds, I bought Mobile Golf Scorer, an inexpensive app to put on a windows mobile pc with a gps. I bought a Garmin iQue M5 on eBay (200$) and I'm good.

I read SportML stuff. I agree with you that it is not appropriate for my/our purpose. SportML focuses on communication of score for press/online score display. We don't really have the same goal, do we? So it's pretty normal that SportML does not suit our needs.

I have no formal process to define GolfML. I just made a dozen XML document to record rounds, course descriptions (tees, length, gps positions...). I don't want to fall on the trap of being too generic and get too loose. I prefer to focus on simpler problems. I generate a schema from a few template document. I use oXygen XML for all XML development. But now that I have some schema, I feel the need to get more formal and more structured.

We can definitively talk on the phone or better via skype. My screenname on skype is pmareschal. I don't turn skype always on. It's better to kind of make an appointment by mail and I'll turn it on around that time. I also have a google talk account for chat/talk.

Please note that this mail comes from my private email address.

There are really nice (free) web sites with good ideas. I hope we'll be able to bring some unity with our specifications.

I like oobgolf.Com, www.eyespygolf.com, www.golflink.com, www.customscorecards.com (if I'm registered on these sites, I'm usually username pmareschal).

Pierre

Le 05-juin-08 à 17:22, John Stamey a écrit :