- From: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:50:04 +0200
- To: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
- Cc: matthew.perry@oracle.com, Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
On 11/04/2016 12:21, Frans Knibbe wrote: > Hello Matt, Raphaël, > > Thank you for your answers! It is nice to see that Matt's first solution > aligns with Raphaël's solution. The GeoSPARQL query will work, but I > think it is a less general solution, it depends on a particular API > (SPARQL) and support of a particular function (getSRID) by the SPARQL > engine. > > It's also nice to see Matt signalling the need for standardization and > Raphaël providing some or all of it next. I do notice a difference in > approach: In Matt's example a set of coordinates using a particular CRS > is a serialization of a geometry, while in Raphaël's example it is the > geometry itself. Is any of these two approaches based on core semantics > of geometry (e.g. the OGC simple features model)? It seems important > that we use the same definitions in this group. I think it's worth mentioning the (long) discussion on this topic we had in the LOCADD CG. I'm copy-pasting below the relevant part of the summary [1]: [[ The possibility of specifying a CRS separately from the geometry representation / serialisation was supported by two main use cases: 1. Ability to explicitly specify a CRS in data aggregated from different sources, which are using, implicitly, different default CRSs - see Raphaël's mail (22 Dec 2013) 2. Ability to query the CRS (e.g., filter geometries based on their CRS) also in SPARQL endpoints not supporting GeoSPARQL or stSPARQL - see Frans's mail (30 Dec 2013) The discussion basically focussed on two main issues: - The possible drawbacks of specifying the CRS separately from the geometry representation. - Whether it would be possible or not to address the use cases with CRS specified as part of the geometry representation / serialisation. The group moved towards the agreement to allow both approaches as alternative and not exclusive options for the specification of a CRS. ]] Personally, I think the point is still valid. Andrea ---- [1]https://www.w3.org/community/locadd/wiki/Use_case:_CRS_specification
Received on Monday, 11 April 2016 15:50:46 UTC