| :* For the lat/long semantic attributes, do we want decimal coordinates (as used in the template), or traditional? Right now I'm using traditional. | | :* For the lat/long semantic attributes, do we want decimal coordinates (as used in the template), or traditional? Right now I'm using traditional. |
− | :* What level of granularity do we need? I used [[Directory:Huntington Beach|Huntington Beach]] for Centiare, but it only provides a general view. [[User:Centiare|Centiare]] 09:29, 7 December 2006 (PST) | + | :* What level of granularity do we need? I used [[Directory:Huntington Beach, California|Huntington Beach]] for Centiare, but it only provides a general view. [[User:Centiare|Centiare]] 09:29, 7 December 2006 (PST) |
| ::Personally, I prefer the decimal method of coordinates. I'll bet that they would work better in the triple-search tool (as one could just enter the coordinate detail as deep as they care to go -- no decimal, a tenth, a hundredth, etc.). I imagine that writing an ASK query for degrees, minutes, and seconds might be a pain in the butt, but writing ASKs for linear, numeric decimals would be a relative cinch. Positive and negative numbers are also more easy to build a query around than N, S, E, and W. Also, decimal just seems so much more "machine-friendly", and that's the whole point of semantic tagging -- get human labor out of the equation. | | ::Personally, I prefer the decimal method of coordinates. I'll bet that they would work better in the triple-search tool (as one could just enter the coordinate detail as deep as they care to go -- no decimal, a tenth, a hundredth, etc.). I imagine that writing an ASK query for degrees, minutes, and seconds might be a pain in the butt, but writing ASKs for linear, numeric decimals would be a relative cinch. Positive and negative numbers are also more easy to build a query around than N, S, E, and W. Also, decimal just seems so much more "machine-friendly", and that's the whole point of semantic tagging -- get human labor out of the equation. |