Association Objects/Rejected

From CommonMap

This page describes rejected proposals of the Objects of the CommonMap initiative. These proposals were rejected in favour of the Association Objects Final Proposal.

Note they are mainly rejected due to the wording. Many of the semantics remain intact.

Objects of the Association (Simplified Proposal)

1. To host a digital collection of locations, free to contribute and consume by anyone for anything.

Objects of the Association (Original Proposal)

To the extent available under the laws of [selected jurisdiction of an Australian State, e.g. Queensland]:

1. To be a secure custodian of data assets, being useful digital geographical models of Earth and, optionally, celestial bodies.
2. To make these models highly available to the internet, including full disclosure of:
   1. Data contents.
   2. Editing history.
   3. Attribution of contributed works.
3. To impose no additional restrictions on the usage of these models except:
   1. for the right of this association to be attributed as the custodian.
   2. for the users to not interfere in the ability of this association or its contributors to improve the usefulness of the models.
4. To have editors of the models submit their work subject to the spirit of the creative commons.
5. To encourage increased usefulness of these models over time. For example:
   1. Making the models available in an openly-implementable format.
   2. Representing the geographical attributes in a datum compatible with an openly-implementable global navigation satellite system.
   3. Improving availability through any of:
      1. Database replication.
      2. Data exports.
      3. Preservation/archiving.
      4. Timely notifications of edits to replica parties.
      5. Mechanisms to make sure contributions made in good faith remain visible to users.
   4. Welcoming edits and improved technologies that increase any of the following qualities of the model:
      1. Accuracy (both absolute to the datum and relative to nearby landmarks),
      2. Precision
      3. Coverage
      4. Semantic consistency
      5. Classes of landmark
      6. Integration between individual contributions.
      7. Ease of integration with other geographical products.
   5. Providing the ability to distinguish between the legal designations and observed realities of landmarks (e.g. as-designed vs. as-built).
   6. Gaining recognition as the preferred supplier of geographical data models of reference, either as standalone products or in conjunction with like minded bodies in other jurisdictions.