RE: [emergency] RE: Sample email to interestedpartiesWRTgeoenhancements to CAP

["Ron Lake" <rlake@galdosinc.com>]

Hi,

The issue of developing and getting standards adopted internationally is
a subtle one, especially when we are talking about things that are not
driven just by economics alone (like Beta and VHS).  The ability to be
open to the points of view of other communities is a key part of that
process.  No one country has a lock on how to do things.  Accuracy of
coordinate representation in a given jurisdiction is one issue, as is
the convenience of the representation to user understanding (e.g. many
cities/states in the US locate road furniture using linear systems) -
but the appearance and the actuality of accommodation of the other
viewpoint is as important if not more so.

Sincerely,

Ron

-----Original Message-----
From: Renato Iannella [mailto:renato@nicta.com.au] 
Sent: November 28, 2007 4:22 PM
To: Art Botterell
Cc: Ron Lake; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org; creed@opengeospatial.org;
sandro@oss.com
Subject: Re: [emergency] RE: Sample email to
interestedpartiesWRTgeoenhancements to CAP


On 28 Nov 2007, at 13:16, Art Botterell wrote:

> No, Renato... We chose to define a simple and consistent standard  
> that would be interoperable worldwide.  And having chosen that  
> strategy we selected the single most widely used CRS for use in that  
> standard.  In so doing we acted to maximize compatibility and  
> competitiveness in a global marketplace without excluding anybody.

I think Ron and Alessandro have shown (in their subsequent emails) how  
we can improve CAP to support the needs of other CRS communities.

> Of course, an influence there was the use of WGS-84 in GPS..  Have  
> large numbers of Australians started throwing away their GPS units  
> in protest of that "imposition"?

No, they don't use CAP either ;-0

> As for OASIS allegedly being US-centric, for consistency wouldn't we  
> have to  point that same finger at the ITU?  If WGS-84 is acceptable  
> for X.1303, is it possible we're making a mountain out of a molehill  
> here


No, that is a different story. We gave the ITU no choice. It was adopt  
CAP 1.1 "as is" or nothing.

You may call it a "mountain/molehill" issue, but to engage the broader  
international community requires compromises - on all parts.

Simple things, like the default language being "US English" to more  
complex, like the SRS scheme, are all areas that CAP 2.0 will need to  
address.

I look forward to the new process and outcomes.

Cheers...  Renato Iannella
NICTA