A Standard for Map Annotations?
Since communication with OGC works so well, I would like to utilize this and post a question that has been on my mind since my diploma thesis in 2004:
Is there an OGC standard for map annotations?
There are two discussion papers heading into this direction that I know about (there might be more that I don’t know). The first one is entitled XML for Image and Map Annotations (XIMA). It allows users to comment on GML features which can be added to all kinds of maps, ranging from maps fetched from OGC services to simple images, where the pixels are used as coordinates (instead of geographic coordinates).
I do not want to go into the details here (since they are all in the discussion paper). However, I hope that you share my point of view that this sounds pretty useful, as there are so many potential use-cases for this kind of thing (just think of keywords like geo-tagging or geo-collaboration). Nevertheless, XIMA never got out of the stage of a discussion paper, and it is almost five years old now.
The second discussion paper is also from 2001, and it is called Local Organizer Folder (LOF). The idea behind it is basically a geo-referenced data storage, which can be useful for disaster management, for example.
Finally, I really wonder why the OGC has not kept on working on these things. Map annotations are a very valuable thing, as they let basically everyone add personal data to a map - without actually changing the map. One indication for this are the dozens of new Google Maps hacks showing up on the web every day.
I am really curious whether there was a good reason to stop going into this direction, or if they actually have a standard for it and I missed the point. So give me comments, please!
RSS Feed
27. January 2006 um 14:43
I am not quite sure if we really need a standard here. Sure, there has to be some way to link your geodata to your annotations. But what the people use to annotate should be their decision. Images, Sounds, structured metadata.. anything counts. The network link for KML (the google way) is a nice example, to not complicate it more than necessary. (network link? [de]),
27. January 2006 um 15:08
If you have a look at XIMA, you will see that it supports anything from text to websites, images, sound, vector graphics, other maps, metadata… whatever you can refer to as a URL. And actually, I don’t think it’s more complicated than KML.
27. January 2006 um 16:37
I must confess, I’ve only read the abstract…
You’re right, having looked at the schema definition, I agree that XIMA could be easy to use. Whereas “easy to use” within the context of GML sounds a bit paradox. Perhaps the application is missing? Geowikis might be one, but wouldn’t you rather annotate maps than gml constructs here? hmm, not sure…
27. January 2006 um 20:46
You do annotate maps. GML is only used to define the point (or line or area) on the map your comment refers to. But of course, the map itself can also be coded in GML. Actually, the spec is so general that it even lets you annotate any kind of XML. So you can annotate pretty much everything.
18. April 2006 um 22:50
[…] Some posts ago Carsten was wondering about the missing proposals for a standardized way for map annotations. Here is a suggestion to utilize ontologies to add these annotations to maps. Sounds like a great idea, Ontologies (written in OWL in this case) do not constrain you to specific properties. If you like, you are able to enrich the annotations by adding new concepts. Sure, this goes even more away from the idea of fixed standard, but on the other hand we would have a standardized way to access and to reason with the available annotations. […]
9. May 2006 um 23:04
[…] Yesterday was the application deadline for this years’ Google Summer Of Code. Two fellow students and me decided to take part with the idea of a plugin for uDig. Map annotation is already a big topic here in this blog. Carsten wrote his thesis about argumentation maps, which brings this issue even a step further. The suggested plugin should not only allow for annotating map features with additional information, but also enable user to argue about features in a chat-like discussion. They should be able to suggest modifications and broadcast specific map views to clarify certain aspects of the ongoing argumentation. The communication between the participants is built on top of the japper protocol. For the map annotations we want to implement the already stated OGC XIMA specification. I am really curious about the reaction of the people at Google and Refractions. And I am eager to here about your comments and (hopefully) suggestions. […]