Hi Paul,
Thanks for bring up these relevant issues.
The geo vocabulary assumes the lat and long are in WGS84.
One of the problems that we were seeing are records that were georeferenced
to the center point of a Canadian Province at it was not clear if that was
actually where the species was
Peter,
FWIW, there's precedent for point and uncertainty in the geo URI RFC:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5870
This would let you express fuzzy locations with fuzzy points instead
of precise circles.
Cheers,
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Peter DeVries pete.devr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
Hi LOD'ers,
There was some discussion about ways to record species observations using
the geo vocabulary at a recent biodiversity informatics meeting.
Some see the advantages of using the geo standard, but we really need to
have a way to incorporate and error or extent in meters.
What would be
Hi Peter
Something like the example below, but I suspect that this might not make it
a real geo:Point?
barely. The old maths teacher in me frowns at points having a radius :)
geo:Point
geo:lat55.701/geo:lat
geo:long12.552/geo:long
dwc:radius10/dwc:radius
/geo:Point
Thanks Bernard,
I will try that! :-)
- Pete
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Bernard Vatant
bernard.vat...@mondeca.comwrote:
Hi Peter
Something like the example below, but I suspect that this might not make it
a real geo:Point?
barely. The old maths teacher in me frowns at points having
