CAP geo values

[Jacob Westfall <jake@jpw.biz>]

Regarding CAP geospatial values, I've heard a number of comments from others regarding CAP's geospatial values and I'm passing them on to the comments list.  

Better compatibility with GML is the most often heard comment.  The geo types of polygon and circle are suitable for the task of describing areas but their formatting, primarily circle, has caused questions and problems with transformations to/from GML.  Also the idea of a box in addition to a polygon has been raised.  The issue of CRSs has been raised but most of the comments were to keep it simple and stick to 4326.

Perhaps the next version of CAP should address the issue of compatibility with GML, by including a simple GML profile to use and/or formatting the current geo types to allow for better transformation.

-- 
jake@jpw.biz
--