KML is evolving and I think we are all in agreement with that.
> My fear is that buzz about KML will lead to widespread adoption of
> low-fidelity interop in place of the high-fidelity interop that the
> IVOA has made a mission to create.
Sure, but right now no matter what the IVOA does it will not work with GSky or WWT unless they can tell you (as WWT lead) what standard they have in mind and (at the same time) negotiate changes into KML or convince Google to adopt this new standard on top of KML. Both of these scenarios are unlikely.
> Tools like Sky in GE, WWT, Virtual Earth and NASA World Wind have
> stirred allot of interest in the visualization and search of
> imagery and data. This in turn has fueled a growth in interest in
> interoperability among astronomers outside the VO community. Let's
> let this trend run it's course. I don't think we should be so quick
> to give up on astronomy based standards just yet.
and I am not advocating KML as a standard as is at all, it would be
foolish. However, until the conditions above change, we have little
or no choice *IF* (this is key) we want to use GoogleSky as a tool.
So, at a very minimum, *IF* we want to use these tools we might want
to, or have to, provide the community with VOTable -> KML translators
or VOTable --> WWT XML translators.
You mention that WWT will speak VOTAble natively, understand SIAPs,
ConeSearches, etc... this is really great. My problem (and it's a
personal opinion) is that VOTable as is, as a transport mechanism is
not adequate. But my opinion, as many know, is irrelevant!
The power of the IVOA would be to aggressively collaborate with industry in setting these standards. Unfortunately, as Carol mentioned, few saw the benefits of this when we could have influenced the KML in GoogleSky.
Ciao,
/A
Dr Alberto Conti
Community Missions Office
Space Telescope Science Institute
contact | tel: 410-338-4534 | aim: wscience
Received on 2008-01-22Z22:10:36