RE: UCR issue: phrasing of CRS requirement(s)


On Monday, May 18, 2015 5:23 PM, Raphaël Troncy wrote:


> > Can we take inspiration from the former one  (geo)  and admit
> > alternative CRSs that must be identified by virtue of the ontology
> > (and therefore namespace, assuming a 1-1 relationship) that is used?
> +1! Note that CRS could also have stable URIs to use. The French
> National Geographic Institute (IGN) aims to provide such stable URIs for
> the numerous CRSs used by French authorities.

I'd do s/could/SHOULD/ (in the sense of RFC 2119)

> > This could do for  *referencing* a  CRS without ever needing a
> > "default". For the *description" of a CRS, I would vote to defer that
> > to the OGC by its existing methods, and I see no reason why that
> > description needs to have a linked data representation,  beyond an
> > ontology that permits its use.
> Please, note that we have already a vocabulary for describing CRSs,
> based on ISO 19111. It is available at and
> see

> to see the description of the vocab in your favorite language.

Do you think it would be possible to develop a XSL transformation to convert CRSs described in OGC-XML to RDF?

And an aside: It's funny to see that even if the CRS vocabulary [1] mainly uses French for comments/definitions etc., the local part of the IRIs are all in English. I wonder when someone dares to supply those parts in another language.



Received on Monday, 18 May 2015 17:14:35 UTC