Yes, agreed. Position is a property of location. In the case of a buildinjg (assuming there is no mass slope movement!), location = position. Cheers Carl > > Hi all, > > On 2008-09-12, at 0704, Carl Reed wrote: > >> A few emails ago I promised to provide clarification on the use of >> the terms "location" viz "position". Turns out that after reviewing >> the use of these terms in ISO, the OGC, and the IETF there appears >> to be consistency! >> >> ISO 19112 >> location: identifiable geographic place >> >> ISO 19133 >> position: data type that describes a point or geometry potentially >> occupied by an object or person > > From that, I would read that location is something that doesn't move, > e.g. a town - an identifiable geographic place. An object/person has a > property called position that identifies its current location. > > So, anything that can move has a position, and everything that can't > move (and this may include buildings, monuments etc) has a location. A > position of course, can be mapped to a location (e.g. to calculate > nearby locations). > > Cheers Gav > >Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2008 22:55:27 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 7 October 2008 02:05:11 GMT