[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] RE: Sample email to interestedpartiesWRTgeoenhancements to CAP
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]