 |
 |
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