<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml"	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: FOSS4G2006 Day 3</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.kralidis.ca/blog/2006/09/14/foss4g2006-day-3/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.kralidis.ca/blog/2006/09/14/foss4g2006-day-3/</link>
	<description>I use this blog to post my thoughts and random stuff from time to time.  See my About page for more info about me.  Note that my views and opinions expressed here are my own and do not reflect the views of my employer</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:33:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mapping Hacks &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Have a nice metadata</title>
		<link>http://www.kralidis.ca/blog/2006/09/14/foss4g2006-day-3/comment-page-1/#comment-108</link>
		<dc:creator>Mapping Hacks &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Have a nice metadata</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:04:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kralidis.ca/blog/2006/09/14/foss4g2006-day-3/#comment-108</guid>
		<description>[...] This is all reaching out into the future a bit far; though I&#8217;d love to be able to show, point to or fully describe, spike-solution implementations of some of these ideas by next year&#8217;s FOSS4G. In the meantime, what can people do to help? Come and join in the conversation on the geodata committee, help to anneal the model and offer simple use cases that don&#8217;t fit it, check out the progress on the Geodata repository blueprint and emit encouraging signals; offer to host, in the future, a node of a distributed geodata/metadata library and discovery service. Tom Kralidis had an interesting reflection after the metadata/catalog BOF; this could easily become too complicated (more of the overthinking that has dogged the process), yet can&#8217;t be reduced to something too simple; what&#8217;s in the core has to be expressed well enough that it&#8217;s not likely to change. I hope that between all of us who Care A Lot About Metadata, it will be possible to find a good balance; I want to be able to manage an evolving model, ongoingly maintaining mappings to different serialisation formats. I&#8217;ve talked about wanting to broker decision process through code, rather than words - to drive interface descriptions from test specifications. Consensus design is a game played by passing, refining the tests on a continuous basis - a code-repository-management-inspired means of maintaining something which works like, but doesn&#8217;t look like, a standard. This is a story for another time, though. For me this has been yet another adventure in exploring the boundaries of my own ignorance; the deep specialists I have talked to haven&#8217;t shot me down in flames yet. But if I&#8217;m missing anything crashingly obvious, or hubristically simplifying anything that I really shouldn&#8217;t be, please yell at me. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[WordPress 2.0.2<p>
[...] This is all reaching out into the future a bit far; though I&#8217;d love to be able to show, point to or fully describe, spike-solution implementations of some of these ideas by next year&#8217;s FOSS4G. In the meantime, what can people do to help? Come and join in the conversation on the geodata committee, help to anneal the model and offer simple use cases that don&#8217;t fit it, check out the progress on the Geodata repository blueprint and emit encouraging signals; offer to host, in the future, a node of a distributed geodata/metadata library and discovery service. Tom Kralidis had an interesting reflection after the metadata/catalog BOF; this could easily become too complicated (more of the overthinking that has dogged the process), yet can&#8217;t be reduced to something too simple; what&#8217;s in the core has to be expressed well enough that it&#8217;s not likely to change. I hope that between all of us who Care A Lot About Metadata, it will be possible to find a good balance; I want to be able to manage an evolving model, ongoingly maintaining mappings to different serialisation formats. I&#8217;ve talked about wanting to broker decision process through code, rather than words &#8211; to drive interface descriptions from test specifications. Consensus design is a game played by passing, refining the tests on a continuous basis &#8211; a code-repository-management-inspired means of maintaining something which works like, but doesn&#8217;t look like, a standard. This is a story for another time, though. For me this has been yet another adventure in exploring the boundaries of my own ignorance; the deep specialists I have talked to haven&#8217;t shot me down in flames yet. But if I&#8217;m missing anything crashingly obvious, or hubristically simplifying anything that I really shouldn&#8217;t be, please yell at me. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

