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