Now you're talking - database views - are our ubiquitous tool for storing and retrieving multi-dimensional data.
the map is not the territory but a database built on a recursive spatial index can be a very useful model. I don't think you're being too simplistic at all. - Brian Grant Alan Keown wrote: > Maybe if we change the semantics and talk of maps as views (in SQL terms) > instead of models. Whenever anyone looks at a map they don't want to see > everything everywhere - even if they do the brain can't comprehend that > much. > > So then the problem of delivering custom maps becomes one of creating custom > views filtered on extent and content. > > If we start with masses of "raw" data, each element tagged with the entity > it represents then an aggregation becomes a view resulting from a > generalisation algorithm applied to the "raw" data in a similar manner to > that in which raw words garnered by a web crawler becomes a set of search > terms. > > If we had a metamodel and the appropriate ontologies for "tagging" the raw > data then we would have the basics for building a semantic geoweb - or am I > being too simplistic? > > Cheers > AlanK > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2008 10:41 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Geowanking] Critical Theory > > > Interesting points Alan and Landon, and I agree we have a long way to go > handle the masses of geodata that exist today and the additional masses that > will be available tomorrow (when Landon's next gen GPS comes to pass). > > Maps are inherently models or abstractions of reality (despite our > acceleration towards mirror worlds). In many ways this gets back to Renee's > MAUP problem - one of the easiest way to abstract data is to aggregate it to > larger units (census tracts, zip codes, counties etc.). While the promise > of always working at the raw data level is tantalizing we are still a long > ways off of that on the GeoWeb. > > If we look at the limits of KML file size support in Virtual Earth and > Google Maps today it is roughly around 2mbs. There are limits of what you > can handle in memory and limits on how much data you can render on the map. > So, while you could conceivably have massive spatial databases of > information your ability to serve up that data and make it consumable by the > public is still severely limited. Just think about how hard it is to > display an average size GIS data file in a GeoWeb application, especially a > browser based application. > > The GeoWeb has done a great job dealing with points of interest and > segmenting them into manageable chunks, but I agree with Landon that going > the next step is going to take an incredible amount of work. Although it is > definitely work worth doing. I believe the upside will dwarf what we've > done with mostly local point data to date. > > > > FortiusOne Inc, > 2200 Wilson Blvd. suite 307 > Arlington, VA 22201 > cell - 202-321-3914 > > _______________________________________________ > Geowanking mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 8.0.134 / Virus Database: 270.4.4/1531 - Release Date: 7/2/2008 7:02 > PM _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
