Mary's Coverage workgroup paper adopts a strongly cartesian or
foot-print view of coverage.
I can also imagine it being used in an unqualified free-text mode...
coverage = Columbus, Ohio
very loose semantics, indeed. Useful? Probably less so than a more
strongly-typed version. Eric mentioned to me that some substantial
percentage (40%?) of all web searches are for local resources.
<red-neck-accent>Don't need no bounding box to find a list of all the
Holiday Inns in Columbus.</red-neck-accent>
On Monday, September 29, 1997 2:50 PM, Misha Wolf
[SMTP:[log in to unmask]] wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >
>
> The current version of Mary's Coverage paper (linked from the DC Web
site)
> contains all of the following. So I'm puzzled about the suggestion
for an
> unqualified DC.coverage element. What would it mean?
>
> coverage.periodName
> coverage.placeName
> coverage.x.min
> coverage.x.max
> coverage.y.min
> coverage.y.max
> coverage.z
> coverage.t.min
> coverage.t.max
> coverage.polygon.include
> coverage.polygon.exclude
> coverage.line
>
> Mary - Is the absence of coverage.z.min and coverage.z.max
intentional?
>
> Misha
|