Eh, you talk to the general public about what the 'web' is and I don't think they'll say 'computationally actionable links', or even 'links'. They'll say it's a place to get information. But I do think 'the web' has benefited by having a somewhat specialized term, instead of just 'information', so I don't think we should just say 'maps'. But maps that are an order of magnitude better than what has come before, ones you can search and combine and create yourself, those are the goal of the Geo Web.
Sean, while I agree with you completely technically - that geospatial architectures have been sparsely linked, and that a more www like architecture needs to be encouraged for the Geo Web to succeed - I'm just using Geo Web as a term to invoke the vision we're working towards. Many terms in the popular consciousness are technically bogus, but are still very useful for explaining to those who aren't experts. Chris On Fri, December 28, 2007 1:28 pm, Sean Gillies wrote: > Chris, > > > The GeoWeb term has been bogus in its own way. It's supposed to be an > analogy to WWW or Semantic Web, right? But what's the defining > characteristic of these webs? Links, computationally actionable links. > Geospatial architectures have always been sparsely linked, at least > until Google Earth and KML hit the mainstream. > > Cheers, > Sean > > > Chris Holmes wrote: > >> Yeah, I've dropped use of the term except when talking to those who >> already know the word. I use Geospatial web or Geo Web, it's a bit more >> intuitive and easy to explain, and I can use it to emphasize the parts >> of SDI that I like. When I was writing a paper I ran across some other >> academic paper that had 7 different definitions for SDI. It does have >> some decent recognition, but those who do know what it means have >> different understandings of what it is, so I don't find it all that >> useful. The Geo Web to me gets at the same end goal as SDI's, but in a >> bottom up instead of a top down way - which is definitely my preferred >> mode. >> >> Chris >> >> >> On Fri, December 28, 2007 7:34 am, Mick Wilson wrote: >> >>> I am in the process of writing a "Why SDI?" guidebook >>> for non-technical middle management types and cannot help but wonder >>> why we put a millstone of an expression like "spatial data >>> infrastructure" around our necks? >>> >>> As a barrier to communication with an >>> instant-glaze-over factor of 100% "SDI" is hard to beat. It is >>> simultaneously pompous and intimidating while conveying very little >>> information to anyone outside inner circle. The term gives little >>> impression of what gets done or what improves if SDI's in place. And >>> just how much SDI planning and development these days is about 'just' >>> data, compared to discussion about value-adding services, chaining, >>> mash-ups and the likes. >>> >>> I appreciate that term is (or at least was) >>> technically accurate and has built up recognition over the past 10+ >>> years, that it's associated with well-respected individuals and >>> organizations. >>> >>> I can but wonder whether it's not worth some effort to >>> come up with something snappier and zingier that even my mother might >>> have a chance of understanding, or at least being curious about. I >>> have no suggestions I'm willing to make at this stage but would like >>> to gauge the level of in taking some of the terminology in new >>> directions. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> > _______________________________________________ > Geowanking mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking > > > !DSPAM:4005,47754080218188992556831! > > > -- Chris Holmes The Open Planning Project http://topp.openplans.org _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
