Comments on: A Standard for Map Annotations?

By: gisblog.net » Blog Archive » Live Argumentation and Manipulation for udig (LAMA)

Tue, 09 May 2006 22:04:37 +0000

[...] 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. [...]

By: gisblog.net » Blog Archive » GeoMarkup: Use OWL to annotate your maps?

gisblog.net » Blog Archive » GeoMarkup: Use OWL to annotate your maps? — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 21:50:32 +0000

[...] 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. [...]

By: Carsten Keßler

Carsten Keßler — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:46:01 +0000

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.

By: Patrick Maué

Patrick Maué — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:37:50 +0000

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…

By: Carsten Keßler

Carsten Keßler — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 14:08:09 +0000

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.

By: Patrick Maué

Patrick Maué — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:43:28 +0000

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]),