 |
 |
Stu Weibel wrote: > 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 Indeed. The Coverage WP does allow the possibility for inclusion of free text strings of this type, but would probably be happier with such strings where they are drawn from a controlled thesaurus such as the Thesaurus of Geographic Names (TGN), the UK's Ordnance Survey 1:50,000/ 1:10,000 gazetteer, etc. While such terms drawn from a controlled thesaurus are undeniably more USABLE from a resource discovery point of view, the problem will be in encouraging people to USE them, rather than just type the name in themselves, 'cos it's 'obvious' [your red-neck KNOWS he means Columbus, Ohio, whereas I, searching the world from York, need not necessarily know which Columbus he means...!]. > 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> Proposal for HTML 5... <red-neck-accent> as an official addition to the HTML DTD...? ;-) -- == paul miller ================== [log in to unmask] == collections manager, archaeology data service, king's manor york, YO1 2EP, UK tel: +44 (0)1904 43 3954 == http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/ahds/ ==== fax: +44 (0)1904 43 3939 ==