- From: Frans Knibbe via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 12:09:00 +0000
- To: public-sdwig@w3.org
Hello Chris, Backward compatibility should certainly be a requirement, or at least something to try to achieve as well as possible. I am hopeful that it will be possible to ensure compatibility with existing standards by including the real mathematical foundations in the ontology. There are many models, standards, storage formats and exchange formats for spatial data. But they all should be compatible at a fundamental level. So with the ability to define everything in fundamental terms, backward compatibility should be achievable (fingers crossed). To answer your questions: 1) With my background in geography, I think there should at least be support for Cartesian, curved linear, and spherical coordinate spaces, up to three dimensions. That partly includes Euclidean and Riemannian coordinate spaces. So I guess the answer should be yes. 2) By 'discrete references systems', do you mean a system that uses a tessellation to indicate location (as in [Discrete Global Grid Systems](http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/groups/dggsswg))? As for CS vs CRS: At least in the geography domain the definition seems to be that a CRS is a CS plus a datum. Datums are important to define and to share data about, but not required for all spatial expressions. So coordinate systems and datums should probably be separate things in the ontology, but combinable. -- GitHub Notification of comment by Fransie Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1095#issuecomment-444850506 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2018 12:09:02 UTC