The following is a note from the OGC Open Location Services Specification.
This specification was developed by a group of GIS and non-GIS companies and location
service providers from around the globe. It is starting to be used by Sprint,
vodaphone, H3G, and other providers. Because, many times they are dealing with
something as simple as a PDA or cell phone they have agreed to use WGS 84.
If it is determined that we need to handle alternative CRSs they should
be handled as an exception rather than the default.
We should not invent yet another new way of handling these.
Attached are examples of a Simple Feature GML line feature (trail),
point feature (utility), and polygon feature (inland water/lake). These are
complete features with attributes, bounding envelop, etc. I think we would only
be interested in the geometry making things much simpler.
The point is - note that the geometry Spatial Reference System (srs) is
identified by the registry name (EPSG) and the item in the registry (the
specific CRS – 4326)
Dave
David M. Danko
GIS Standards
Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.
E-mail: ddanko@esri.com
Tel: 703-506-9515 x 8011
Fax: 703-506 9514
-----Original Message-----
From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:len.bullard@intergraph.com]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 4:01 PM
To: 'Art Botterell'; Emergency_Mgt_TC TC
Subject: RE: [emergency] Re: Circle and Polygon
While I am not personally acquainted with him,
Mr. Ianella is a TC member and has made very sharp
contributions to the TC work by my observation.
1. Regional data sharing systems developers cope
with legacy systems everyday. WGS84 meets the
needs of the majority, but minorities are also
served by emergency systems. Please respond
to the requirement to enable alternative CRSs
as needed.
2. Avoiding XML attributes is technically unsupported.
The first item is a requirement; the second, a means.
The choice of means is a choice of the TC. IMO, the
best choice is one that is technically reasonable and
supports the requirements of the members regards their
local communities and the need for fast implementation.
I bristle when accusations are made that North
American opinions dominate OASIS designs; yet I am
more disturbed when member credentials are
questioned and their reasonable requirements are
dismissed as hypothesis. It makes the accuser's case
and is itself, a position without merit.
len
From: Art Botterell [mailto:acb@incident.com]
On Jun 17, 2005, at 6/17/05 7:59 AM, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Why avoid attributes? That is superstitious behavior.
Whether or not individuals share the theology, that's the choice
the
TC has made, repeatedly. And I don't think the issue here is
large
enough to justify us going back and re-plowing that old and
bloody
ground.
> If you name it for it's origin, you will add hundreds of elements.
> If you codelist it, you only have to include that and maintain it.
See, this is where trying to compromise gets a guy. ;-)
Look, I remain persuaded that we can and should specify a single
CRS. I was merely trying to address a concern about the spec
alone
possibly not being enough to clarify which CRS that is. I was
NOT
trying to open the door to forcing implementers to support
hundreds
of CRSs.
(At most they should have to deal with two... WGS84 and their
preferred local CRS. I suspect the vast majority will continue
to
get along just fine with WGS84 alone.)
Again, I haven't heard any actual implementer report any of this as
a
problem... nor have I heard any technical reason why it should
one.
This whole topic seems to be based on a hypothetical concern for
some
third parties' sensitivities. Seems like we may be chasing ghosts
here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your
TCs in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php