Re: ISA Core Location Vocabulary

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Frans Knibbe | Geodan <
frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:

> On 2013-12-22 1:53, Andrea Perego wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Ghislain.
>>
>> Actually, the approach adopted in the Core Location Vocabulary was to
>> allow the use of any kind of geometry encoding/representation (so, yes,
>> Frans, also the NeoGeo voc is supported, even though it is not included in
>> the examples). The point was that there was no agreement in the group about
>> the best way to represent geometries. Rather, the group recognised that
>> this depends on the specific use case.
>>
>> I wonder whether which are views in the CG on this issue.
>>
>
> I think that in the end we need one commonly used way to encode geometry.
> The vocabulary now allows any kind of encoding that was ever invented. That
> allows for freedom to adapt to existing systems, but it does not help
> interoperability much. So I think it would be a good idea to try to agree
> on a best practice for encoding geometry in this group.
>

Thanks, Frans. However, before considering the revision of the LOCN voc in
this direction, I would kindly ask some more feedback from the group.


> With regard to interoperability of INSPIRE data: Isn't geometry generally
> defined as GM_Object (from ISO 19107)  in INSPIRE?  And shouldn't that mean
> that any geometry encoding should support all subtypes of GM_Object?


Sorry, Frans, I'm missing the point here - probably because of the late
hour ;)

Could you please articulate it more explicitly?

Andrea