Re: [SDWWG] CRS Issues, Issue-28

2015-07-21 3:29 GMT+02:00 <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>:

>  Frans – simplification is a noble idea, but there is a non-zero amount
> of complexity which must be managed. It is a question of who sees it. You
> make it easier on users only by pushing more work onto providers, or vice
> versa, but the work cannot be wished away.
>
>
>
> CRS definition is not trivial, and we should not pretend that it is. For
> example, reference systems are meaningless without datums. Geodesy is a
> significant discipline in its own right, and experience shows that
> grappling with the relationship between coordinates and coordinate
> reference systems is the thing that trips up geospatial newcomers most
> spectacularly.
>
>
>
> If you want to make it easy on users and even web developers, then you
> have to nail down all the options. That is unlikely to mean a simple
> definition. It is might mean a complex service with a simple API.
>

Looking at the current set of requirements, which call for handling
coordinates that go beyond geographical (earth based) reference systems, I
think that it is likely that we need some kind of semantic system for
describing coordinate reference systems. Not only reference systems that
can be used for geographic data, but for the more general spatial data.
Such a semantic system might very well be layered: using simple basics with
added layers of complexity. For example, I can imagine a vocabulary
describing just the concept of a coordinate reference system, irrespective
of the surface it is based on (plane, spherical or something else). Simple
planar or spherical coordinate systems could be based on that simple
definitions. A further extension of the concept of a basic spherical CRS
could be one that can be applied to sphere-like surfaces, like planets.
Further extension could also include time-dependent parameters, allowing
dynamic reference systems.

Should such a layered semantic system for describing coordinate reference
systems come into existence, one does not necessarily have to make use of
the most complex elaborations. It will be a matter of choosing the most
appropriate abstraction level. And for choosing a 'default CRS' for earth
based longitude/latitude coordinates perhaps a low level (e.g. datumless)
system makes sense. I think there could still be a lot of value in that,
for both publishers and consumers. And of course no one is forced to use a
simple default if a more elaborate definition is more appropriate.

Regards,
Frans




>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> *From:* Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 21 July 2015 1:26 AM
> *To:* Heaven, Rachel E.; SDW WG Public List; Kerry Taylor; Svensson,
> Lars; Peter Baumann
>
> *Subject:* Re: [SDWWG] CRS Issues, Issue-28
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> Not about the phrasing of the default CRS
> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#DefaultCRS> requirement,
> but a thought on what a solution might look like:
>
>
>
> Would it help if there was a vocabulary that defines a very simple CRS,
> composed of latitude, longitude and elevation, without any reference to
> datums and such? Such definitions of longitude and latitude would be even
> more simple than the corresponding properties in the basic geo vocabulary
> <http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos>, because that vocabulary
> assumes WGS84.
>
>
>
> Perhaps then longitudes and latitudes with WGS84 or ETRS89 or whatever
> datums could be seen as specialisations of the general concept of longitude
> and latitude. I think that in many current publications of (point)
> geometries that is exactly what is happening: there is a longitude and a
> latitude, but there is no idea of which specific geodetic CRS they are
> related to. It's just longitude and latitude. Probably that is also the way
> historic locations from before the age of geodesy should be handled.
> Longtitude and latitude were recorded before geodetic datums were invented.
>
>
>
> And perhaps such a simple set of definitions could also function well as a default
> CRS
> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#DefaultCRS>
> .
>
>
>
> A logical consequence would be that there is a limit to the accuracy of
> the lon/lat numbers. For high precision coordinates one should make use of
> a more fully specified CRS (WGS84, ETRS89 or even a dynamic CRS). But still
> coordinates that are just longitude and latitude are useful for various
> purposes and could be made to be interoperable with more thoroughly defined
> geometries.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Frans
>
>
>
> 2015-07-08 12:48 GMT+02:00 Heaven, Rachel E. <reh@bgs.ac.uk>:
>
>  I agree with Kerry, Lars, Peter below.
>
>
>
> I think allowing publishers to use an implied default CRS would lead to
> many misunderstandings for consumers (for data that pre-dates or doesn’t
> follow the best practice, or when WGS2024 or whatever comes along..), and
> we should aim to have publishers make the CRS explicit in the data or
> metadata.
>
>
>
> To help consumers handle the cases where the CRS is not explicit, perhaps
> the requirement should be to provide guidance on which CRS to assume, and
> suggested methods to validate that assumption. In many cases the assumption
> could be WGS84 but this will depend on the data source, context, accuracy
> required etc.
>
>
>
> (As another example of WGS84 not being safe to assume as the default: the
> working CRS for the UK offshore petroleum industry is ED50 east of and
> including 6 deg W ED50, and ETRF89 to the west of that line – the
> wonderfully named Thunderer Line. For consistency the industry uses an
> agreed set of transformations between ED50, ETRF89, OSGB36 and WGS84.  100s
> metres positional error in using the wrong CRS can be costly...)
>
>
>
> Rachel
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Kerry Taylor [mailto:Kerry.Taylor@acm.org]
> *Sent:* 03 July 2015 14:49
> *To:* SDW WG Public List
> *Subject:* Re: [SDWWG] CRS Issues, Issue-28
>
>
>
> I agree with Lars and Peter!  The notion of default is highly contextually
> dependent -- someone's sensible default is another's nightmare.
>
>
>
> It seems to me that we are expecting ( at least where there is a geometry)
> spatial locations to to be described according to a vocabulary. Yes? Then
> all we need to do is to reuse the vocabulary namespace  ( which of course
> is also an http URI) as the identifier for a CRS.  This is just what the
> geo wgs84  http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/   does.
>
>
>
> But won't this work very easily every time for everyone? every time
> wgs84:latitude is used the crs is explicit, and myfavourite:latitude or
> outofthisworld:somewhere is just as easy and well-defined.
>
>
>
>
>
> The vocabulary itself can have as much or as little description of the CRS
> itself as is desired, minimally, it only needs to define the terms that are
> needed to describe a point in its model of space. but we could say more
> about what description should be given.
>
>
>
> We could even consider adding terms like "near" into such a vocabulary as,
> potentially, the crs implies something about scale and resolution.  That is
> a question for another day.
>
>
>
> If we agree on this, perhaps the same solution will also work for time.
>
>
>
> This is a proposed solution, not a requirement which is the main question
> here.  But if this solution works then surely the requirement that CRS are
> mandatory becomes non- controversial, as if the best practice is followed
>  then by this solution it is not even possible to have a "default" crs.
>
>
>
> Kerry
>
>
>
>
> On 2 Jul 2015, at 11:20 pm, "Svensson, Lars" <L.Svensson@dnb.de> wrote:
>
>   Just for the record:
>
>  +1 to the benefits of a default CRS, as long as any such default is well
>
> documented and understood.
>
>
> One problem with a default CRS is that if I publish data and don't specify
> a CRS (because the current default is correct for me) that works now. The
> moment some future WG decides that what we decided to be our default CRS is
> not accurate anymore and specifies a new default CRS, my data would be
> invalid (or at least partially incorrect) because it would be interpreted
> in context of the new default CRS. I understood from the comments yesterday
> that it is probably a corner case, so I won't push this any further.
>
> /Lars
>
>
>
> Van: SDWWG [mailto:sdwwg-
>
>  bounces+l.vandenbrink=geonovum.nl@lists.opengeospatial.org] Namens Ed
>
>  Parsons via SDWWG
>
>  Verzonden: donderdag 2 juli 2015 11:16
>
>  Aan: Peter Baumann; Bruce Bannerman; SDW WG Public List;
>
>  sdwwg@lists.opengeospatial.org
>
>  Onderwerp: Re: [SDWWG] CRS Issues [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
>
>
>  This issue addresses only how your reference the details of a CRS
> detailed at a
>
>  different location on the web. I think it is beyond our scope to define
> new
>
>  spatio-temporal CRS's.
>
>
>
>  As to the dangers of a default CRS, as long as any such default is well
>
>  documented and understood, there is great benefit. I look forward to
> continued
>
>  debate on this issue :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>  Ed
>
>
>
>
>
>  On Thu, 2 Jul 2015 at 09:55 Peter Baumann <p.baumann@jacobs-university.de
> >
>
>  wrote:
>
>  +1 from my side, plus an extra issue:
>
>
>
>  it is pretty clear that today we need CRSs for height and time just as
> much as
>
>  we need it for Lat and Long. Technically IMHO this means we need to come
> up
>
>  with
>
>  CRSs being able to hold _all_ such axes. Having all these CRSs separate
> and
>
>  with
>
>  individual mechanisms is a nightmare. Therefore, I'd propose a
>
>
>
>  Requirement:
>
>  It must be possible in location information item (such as coordinates) to
>
>  express all spatio-temporal location information in one CRS. This
> implies that
>
>  CRSs can have a different number of dimensions, depending on the
> dimensions
>
>  captured (such as 1-D time, 2-D Lat/Long, 3-D Lat/Long/time or
>
>  Lat/Long/height
>
>  or Lat/Long/Pressure, or 4-D Lat/Long/height/time).
>
>
>
>  Furthermore:
>
>
>
>  On 07/01/15 23:34, Bruce Bannerman wrote:
>
>  Sorry that I was not able to participate in the call.
>
>
>
>   Two CRS issues:
>
>
>
>   _CRS Definition_
>
>
>
>   Most of the discussion to date on this thread appears to have related
> to just
>
>  horizontal CRS. Issues relating to both vertical and temporal CRS have
> also
>
>  been discussed in a number of emails.
>
>
>
>   Are these CRS also covered by 1. Below.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   _Default CRS_
>
>
>
>   Issues relating to the assumption that data is based on a default CRS
> have
>
>  been raised from memory. For many use cases, this assumption can be quite
>
>  dangerous and can have unforeseen consequences.
>
>
>
>   See also my related post on 'misuse of spatial data'.
>
>
>
>   I'm trying to find some citable references that effectively illustrate
> the issue
>
>  of 'misuse', but have limited time. I'll keep going though, as this is an
>
>  important, but typically overlooked issue, as people just strive for a
> map as a
>
>  'pretty picture'.
>
>
>
>  I had sent around an example where an Austrian municipality publishes its
>
>  coordinates - without CRS. And the silently assumed CRS is not WGS84. So
>
>  locating this town under the assumption of WGS84 would lead you maybe
> into
>
>  the
>
>  ocean.
>
>
>
>  -Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>   Bruce
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   ________________________________
>
>   From: Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>
>
>   Sent: Thursday, 2 July 2015 12:14 AM
>
>   To: SDW WG Public List; sdwwg@lists.opengeospatial.org
>
>   Subject: 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/SDWUseCasesAndRequireme
>
>  nts.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#
> <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<http://www.edparsons.com> @edparsons
>
>
>
>
>
>  --
>
>  Dr. Peter Baumann
>
>   - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
>
>     www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
>
>     mail: p.baumann@jacobs-university.de
>
>     tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
>
>   - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
>
>     www.rasdaman.com, mail: baumann@rasdaman.com
>
>     tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
>
>  "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis
> ventis
>
>  dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata,
> nec
>
>  preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)
>
>  --
>
>  Ed Parsons
>
>  Geospatial Technologist, Google
>
>  Mobile +44 (0)7825 382263
>
>  www.edparsons.com @edparsons
>
>     ------------------------------
>
> This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is
> subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this
> email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt
> from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in
> an electronic records management system.
>  ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Frans Knibbe
>
> Geodan
>
> President Kennedylaan 1
>
> 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)
>
>
>
> T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
>
> E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
>
> www.geodan.nl
>
> disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>
>
>
>



-- 
Frans Knibbe
Geodan
President Kennedylaan 1
1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)

T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
www.geodan.nl
disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>