Irisi Flimsi wrote:
Perhaps we could try to figure it out. First: what kind of entities (categories) should be modeled?
2) settlements (different categories?)
3) rivers (different categories?)
4) roads (different categories?)
5) points of interest (peaks, caves, natural monuments, ...)
6) field names, geographic areas (forests, landscapes, ...)
7) (political) boundaries/ areas
Second: What possible features do these entities have?
D- geographic location (geo reference)
F- temporal information (when is the information valid)
G- original publications (if IPR allow)
H- references to publications
I- cross references to other objects (by IDs)
Do we need concurrent versions of objects (e.g. fanon/ canon, items with temporal development)?
Settle for something simple first and make it expandible. That will give a feel for the magnitude of the task. How do you factor in Silverleaf comments?
Other than that, I'd go with (2) and A, B, D, H. First problem: which geo ref? To the Kelestia map? Where are the geo coordinates since Greenwhich is missing and we have no true curvature information on Kelestia?
I'm liking this! If we can get things going with (2), A, B, D and H, then expanding should be easier than trying to fit everything from the start, yes.
Addressing the problems, we should IMO remember that we're talking about a fantasy world and there actually is no one single truth. Therefore there's bound to be error from different sources. Now, I'm not very familiar with different coordinate systems, but according to quick research (PDF here
, chapter 3 & appendix B) we could define the center point in the Kelestia map as "Greenwhich" (as it is in the WeatherMaster data set available from Bill Gant (if I remember correctly)). Using that point as reference, we could then define (roughly evaluate) the 3D ellipsoidal coordinates for a point that is mapped better (for example Cherafir, as the capital of Melderyn) and use that as a reference point from there on out. Ellipsoidal coordinates can be converted to x,y,z cartesian coordinates, if needed. I hope I'm not totally full of BS now...
The problem is (I think) the coordinate systems and projections in computer programs. Can you define a new projection (i.e. Kelestia, the planet) to it? We could IMO assume that Kelestia is round, and not a bi-axial ellipsoid. On the other hand, we could assume that Kelestia is the same geometry as Terra, but only scaled down (Kelestia is, if I recall correctly, smaller than Terra).
I'd recommend using the Kelestia Harn regional map for georeferencing (at least) the major settlements.