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

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

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