I like the idea about available search extents. Can you toss all this in the comments on my blog post? That way I remember, and maybe spurs more discussion :)
But doing that, then it would allow smart search clients to not even try the engine (save bandwidth/time) since you're right that many sites just won't have data outside of a small region (small could still be a nation, but not global). This could carry to time as well (I don't have any data before 1992, or no future data), and general search (more difficult, but I could imagine saying you only support searches dealing in "technology", so don't search pizza unless you want something about how to make smarter pizza's ;) On 6/20/07, Barry Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This looks very interesting, and a nice formalization of things that where discussed on this list a while ago. One thing wondering if would be nice to be able to specify something like: <opensearchgeo:extents>49,- 9.5,62,2.3</opensearchgeo:extents> in the main definition block. Not sure of the practical use, or how it would be understood by the search initiator, but in theory it should allow an engine to state where it works. So if the initiator is capable of talking in boxes then it could know what is a rational search (assuming the engine isn't global) (btw haven't given this much thought, so the actual format of the tags, or if it could also be specified as a country code, or lat/long/radius extra. But the basic idea would to specify a geographic extent. ) FWIW, geograph.org.uk, now supports this extension: http://www.geograph.org.uk/stuff/osd.xml (well technically it doesn't actually mark up the results correctly, but something to be worked on!) Now who is going to be the first initiator capable of creating a geo search via this, (for running against mapufacture.com or geograph.org.uk , unless someone knows of more...) ? ;) On 6/15/07, Andrew Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Greetings - as some of you may know - from WhereCamp - we rapidly put > together a draft specification of OpenSearch-Geo. We did it with > DeWitt Clinton - the original mastermind behind OpenSearch, and had > general consensus in the group. > > I've posted the draft here - with some modifications: > http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/Extensions/Geo/1.0/Draft_1 > > I would definitely like any more feedback or thoughts people could > offer on the spec. The guiding principle behind the spec was to make > it work with existing services where possible (hence the bbox w,s,e,n > order) and also make it parallel to GeoRSS and GeoJSON. > > This makes it easier for all the specs to try and move forward > together in the future (we can argue concepts/terminology once and > have it apply to all) as well as educating other developers and users > by being able to instruct once and have common concepts carry over to > the different "formats". > > I figured Friday afternoon - you're all looking for some interesting > reading and the weekend to play with it. :) > > Thanks > Andrew > > -- > Andrew Turner > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 42.2774N x 83.7611W > http://highearthorbit.com Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA > _______________________________________________ > Geowanking mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking > -- Barry - www.nearby.org.uk - www.geograph.org.uk - _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
-- Andrew Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] 42.2774N x 83.7611W http://highearthorbit.com Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
