W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > July 2015


From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:44:36 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFVDz40+jUUbLN+w3nxJSpL15Ys7E1v07shTXZiCsPtuYh6pKA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kerry Taylor <Kerry.Taylor@acm.org>
Cc: "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
2015-07-22 17:14 GMT+02:00 Kerry Taylor <Kerry.Taylor@acm.org>:

> Are we getting close to agreement in this thread? I.e that a CRS MUST be
> unambiguously identified for any geometric point, but that does not imply
> that we have to say how such a CRS is defined  (and indeed we should not
> prescribe how such a CRS is defined --only that it must be identified).
> Or should we devote a meeting to resolving this issue.? Given that it
> obviously needs a lot of space and opinions run hot, I would propose
> announcing it a few weeks ahead and planning for a few identified speakers
> to put various points of view to the meeting.
> What do you think?

I think that in case of ISSUE-28 it is important to separate the
requirement from possible means of meeting the requirement. The requirement
should give an idea of the problem, the later deliverables should provide a
solution to the problem. To me statements like 'a CRS MUST be unambiguously
identified for any geometric point' sound suspiciously like a solution
instead of a requirement.

It would probably help if we can somehow describe which problems the
concept of a default CRS should solve. Is it meant to provide meaning to
coordinates that are published on the web which don't have a CRS reference?
Is it meant to prevent data bloat? Is it meant as a way to reach agreement
on a globally applicable CRS?

It seems to me that this thread is mostly about possibilities for finding a
best practice for a default CRS. But that is getting ahead of things. I had
created the thread Default CRS Requirement
<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jul/0031.html> to
discuss possible rephrasing or extension of the requirement, but I think I
was unaware of this thread then. No matter where the discussion takes
place, I hope we can focus on finding the right phrasing for the
requirement, or explaining what the requirement is about through some added


> Kerry

Frans Knibbe
President Kennedylaan 1
1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)

T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>
Received on Wednesday, 22 July 2015 15:45:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:17 UTC