[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] RE: Sample email to interestedpartiesWRTgeoenhancements to CAP
In effect that is what I am suggesting also. R -----Original Message----- From: Alessandro Triglia [mailto:sandro@oss.com] Sent: November 26, 2007 10:35 PM To: Ron Lake; 'Art Botterell'; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [emergency] RE: Sample email to interestedpartiesWRTgeoenhancements to CAP > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Lake [mailto:rlake@galdosinc.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 03:29 > To: Art Botterell; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org; sandro@oss.com > Subject: RE: [emergency] RE: Sample email to > interestedpartiesWRTgeoenhancements to CAP > > Art: > > Then one says that for such devices there is only one CRS and this is > specified by a particular CRS registry entry. Still, I would rather place that kind of restriction in a profile, not in the main CAP standard. Alessandro > In either case the > specification of the CRS MUST be unambiguous, Just agreeing on say > (lat,lon) will not be enough if the different users select for example > different datums as this will lead to the same (lat,lon) corresponding > to different places on the earth. > > Since at the present time, there are not a great number of > truly global > alerts - it could make sense to have the single CRS used in > one part of > the world differ from that in another part of the world - I think the > key issue is to eliminate ambiguity in the meaning of coordinates. > > Ron
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]