Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
| foragemarkuplanguage [2010-10-25 12:16] – some suggestions for improvements 145.118.98.92 | foragemarkuplanguage [2010-10-27 10:39] (current) – 145.50.39.11 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
| 4. Last I would vote for the KML way of describing a location, since I seems to me easier to implement, and relying on spaces in xml is in my experience a possibility for a lot of errors. | 4. Last I would vote for the KML way of describing a location, since I seems to me easier to implement, and relying on spaces in xml is in my experience a possibility for a lot of errors. | ||
| + | | ||
| + | | ||
| + | | ||
| + | | ||
| + | Joey: cheers, all fair points. The observer desires to be observered, also for trust-issues, | ||
| + | It makes sense to broaden the tag from plant to species, but, on the other hand, only plants stay where they are, and the augmentation annotation model works because it localizes resources with extreme precision. Also, when you open up for all species you may want to inlude another tag to record plant, fish, tree of whatever. | ||
| + | an example file would be: | ||
| + | | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | | ||
| + | |||
| + | | ||
| + | | ||
| | | ||
145.118.98.92