next generation of Sky in Google Earth
aa at astro.ex.ac.uk
Tue Jan 22 07:50:10 PST 2008
>> Google has given us a new IVOA standard, it's KML, and we'd better
>> get used to the idea. Possibly the IVOA should accept the status
>> quo and officially adopt it. It might give us a (very) little bit
>> more leverage.
> This I find a strange set of statements. Google has not "given us"
> anything. Rather I would say they have made a somewhat ropy
> standard without external consultation, a standard that does not
> carry rich metadata and has very poor image support. Obviously we
> astronomers are forced into using this hand-me-down from the geo
> people, because Google has billions of dollars and billions of
I think that's an overly pessimistic view of KML's capabilities, and
a poor representation of the history of the standard.
> As for official adoption, my understanding is that Google has
> handed over the KML process to the Open Geospatial Consortium
> (OGC), who will be creating future versions -- this time with input
> from the rest of the world. I am not sure that IVOA should be
> making Recommendations on KML: what happens if these are different
> from the OGC version?
I'm sure the IVOA should be making recommendations on the use of KML,
I think the IVOA should be telling people that it's 'okay' to use it.
Because people are going to, and if the IVOA advises against that, or
takes a skeptical view of its use, then the IVOA becomes increasingly
marginalized and less relevant. You only have to look at what's
happened to the Grid people.
> Surely what we need is not just a blanket Recommendation of KML as
> it exists now, but rather VO representation at the OGC meetings?
> Does anyone know anyone at OGC?
Unfortunately not. But yes, that sounds like the optimal approach.
More information about the interop