LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


ZNG@C4VLPLISTSERV01.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  June 2003

ZNG June 2003

Subject:

Re: CQL Range Search Syntax

From:

Archie Warnock <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Mon, 9 Jun 2003 12:16:14 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (47 lines)

Mike Taylor wrote:
> Hi Archie, thanks for these comments. Thing is, I'm not altogether
> sure whether they mean that you do or don't like my suggestion!

Probably because I'm not sure if I like them or not myself. I think I
do, mostly but I was actually directing my comments more towards Ray's
earlier remark, in which he said:

 > Overcomplicating because it appears that the geo folks may only want a
 > crude normalized rectangle (east bounding longitute, west bounding
 > longitude, north bounding latitude, and south bounding latitude).

That's not actually the case. We (the GEO and CIP communities, anyway)
do need to be able to specify more complex regions. Note that the
current sematics of the spatial term in the GEO profile provide a
natural extension from a bounding rectangle to an arbitrary polygon
(that is, it's an ordered list of ordered pairs of coordinates, so the
rectangle is just a special - and degenerate - case because specifying
two opposing corners completely defines the rectangle). As our back-end
search engines become more capable, it will be more important to be able
specify more complex footprints than just a rectagle. Something like
your example:

 > foo.geographicalPoint within "22n,78e 24n,82e"

probably won't be adequate.

> I'll reproduce my previous email below: please shout if the model is
> unable to represent any of the queries you, and with GEO community
> generally, might want to express. If it's OK, I'll re-phrase it in
> "proposal" form.

I'll look it over in more detail shortly and post some more detailed
comments, if appropriate. I guess my initial concern isn't that there
may be terms which can't be represented so much as it initially appears
that it's just different than what we've already exercised in the GEO
profile and I'll have to think a little bit as to whether there is any
benefit to making a change. That doesn't mean that we can't - just that
I'd like to cogitate on the implications before I say one way or another.

--
Archie

-- Archie Warnock Internet: [log in to unmask]
-- A/WWW Enterprises http://www.awcubed.com
-- As a matter of fact, I _do_ speak for my employer.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager