On 08/06/2011 15:58, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
TimSC wrote:
On 07/06/11 14:37, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
You don't need to put stuff into OSM to make it mashable-uppable. Most
competent licences will have a Collective Work/Database provision to
enable this.
While this this strictly true it is sometimes hard to associate
external records with specific OSM objects. Some importing of reference
and ID numbers makes this easier.
It's only hard because no-one's yet built a tool to do it.
You don't have to be that other double-barrelled Tim to understand that
linked data is the coming thing and that (as indeed timbl has pointed out)
OSM is ideally suited to be part of this new world. But you have to have
some way of linking, and stuffing OSM with every single id of every single
dataset that might want to link to it is self-evidently _not_ the way to do
it.
It isn't as complex as you'd think. You could provide an OSM service which
ensures some degree of id memory. Alternatively, you could provide a way of
fuzzy matching without ids ("the chemist around 52.9346, -1.87639"). There's
huge amounts of prior art to work from (Yahoo WOEIDs and all that).
If only we had more people who were prepared to pull their boots on and
actually do stuff :(.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Hardly code, but a few thoughts on this point:
http://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2011/06/possums.html
Aaron Cope's building=yes (link in blog post) work uses WOEIDs and is
much more sophisticated: therefore might be a good place to start with
learning how to make them persistent.
If I can get Peter Koerner to create a history extract of part of the
UK, then I might play a bit as well. It realy helps to have a feel for
the data in finding the real gotchas.
Jerry
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
