Re: [emergency] Groups - Updated CAP 1.1 issues

["Carl Reed" <creed@opengeospatial.org>]

Art -

Not to open a can of works (again), but below is a comment from a highly
respected geospatial/IT expert in Australia. The comment is WRT use of WGS
84. While this comment was made in the context of some ongoing OGC
standards work, I believe that it is germane to the work of this TC - both
CAP and EDXL. Personally, I would like to see CAP as widely adopted as
possible in the international community. I am therefore suggesting that we
enhance CAP 1.1 (?) to allow specification of other coordinate reference
systems. This could be done by references. I have proposed this numerous
times. Perhaps now is the time to consider adding an optional element to
CAP to allow specification of a CRS other than WGS 84.
Cheers

Carl

The other contentful issue I would beg to differ on is the Annex B
directive that WFS servers *must* support WGS84 "to enable
interoperability across regional boundaries".Whatever you North Americans may like to think, jurisdictions in the rest
of the world really do *not* keep all their data in WGS84 - for example,
much Australian data is still stored in AGD84 (which makes it ~200m offset
from WS84) and even for those jurisdictions that have updated to GDA94
there is an offset of ~2m which is small but still enough to cause
problems with utilities.And either AGD84 or GDA94 is legally mandated.Cross-regional interoperability can only be ensured by a coordinate
transformation service.Whatever the North American-based vendors would
like to think, you just can't mandate global compliance to WGS84.