CRS Issues

Thanks for you input everyone on the call today.. Here is where we stand on
the combined issues raised by Frans.

1)The CRS Definition requirement
<http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#CRSDefinition>
currently
in the UCR document should be rephrased. This is what ISSUE-10
<https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/10> is about. The proposal
for new wording is "There should be a recommended way of referencing a CRS
with a HTTP URI, and to get useful information about the CRS when that URI
is dereferenced."
*Agreed and accepted slight modified wording removing "recommended".*
2)In the course of discussing CRS requirements a new BP requirement was
introduced: Default CRS
<http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#DefaultCRS>.
No issues have been raised with regard to this requirement yet.
*New issue created but not a new formal requirement.*
3)In the course of discussing CRS requirements a possible new BP
requirement has come up. ISSUE-29 (Add a requirement for linking geometry
to CRS) <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/29> was raised to
enable further discussion and/or decision-making.
*Agreed a new requirement*
4)Whether 'a recommend way' is the best expression to be used in
requirements is something that is discussed in the thread Use of the word
'standard' in the UCR document
<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jun/0211.html>.
*Agreed that the appropriate term should be "Advice", rather than
recommended way or standard, so the BP should offer Advice as needed.*

Ed

-- 

Ed Parsons
Geospatial Technologist, Google

Mobile +44 (0)7825 382263
www.edparsons.com @edparsons