Fwd: Issue-10 unresolved in meeting today

> 
> -5 from me.
> 
> We have gone round in circles.
> 
> I have no objection to 1 and 2, noting that we seem to have lost the http uri part again, which was rather well supported. 
> 
> I mildly dislike 3 as  it is already covered by 2, so redundant.
> 
> I dislike 4 because it puts us back where we started before the last meeting. can we separate the concern of mandatory or not? this was quite controversial when discussed on the email list some time ago.   This is already recorded as separate issue   issue-28, but could certainly be worded better. 
> 
> Kerry
> 
> 
>> On 26 Jun 2015, at 10:34 pm, matthew perry <matthew.perry@oracle.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 6/26/2015 5:06 AM, Andrea Perego wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:06 AM,  <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:
>>>>> Then, the requirement is:
>>>> 1.
>>>>> to be able to reference a CRS with a URI, and
>>>> 2.
>>>>> to get useful information about the CRS when you dereference that URI.
>>>> Then there are at least two more requirements:
>>>> 3. a mechanism to associate a CRS reference with a geometry description
>>>> 4. for there to be a default or implied CRS reference where it is not explicit in the data.
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> Andrea
>>> 
>> +1 from me too.
>> 
>> Matt
>>