The sdwgeo ontology includes a crs property for geometries, separately from whatever might be within a serialization, e.g. for WKT. The additional question is whether a new crs vocabulary is needed or a URI reference to existing crs definitions is sufficient.
Josh
Joshua Lieberman, Ph.D.
Principal, Tumbling Walls Consultancy
Tel/Direct: +1 617-431-6431
jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com
> On Jul 19, 2016, at 04:34, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl> wrote:
>
> Hi Frans, fellow BP editors,
>
> Issue-29, about a way to link geometries to CRS, is something I’m getting questions about from ‘the wild’; that is: the Dutch Kadaster where they are busily publishing spatial linked data). They are looking for a way to link geometries to CRS. I have an email from them explaining what they need and what their current workaround is, but it’s in Dutch.
>
> Linda
>
> Van: Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
> Verzonden: donderdag 14 juli 2016 15:31
> Aan: Jeremy Tandy; Linda van den Brink; Payam Barnaghi; Simon Cox; Kerry Taylor; Krzysztof Janowicz; Armin Haller
> CC: SDW WG Public List
> Onderwerp: Re: Wanted: feedback on UCR requirements
>
> Dear fellow editors,
>
> I am happy to report that the current draft of the UC&R is now free of those pesky red notifications of unresolved issues. Many thanks for your help with that! However, the tracker still lists two things that need to be done:
>
> Issue-29 is about a possible new requirement for the BP deliverable. Could the BP team please have a look?
>
> Action-111 is about possibly adding use cases and requirements that were used for the existing SSN vocabulary. Could the SSN team please have a look and make a decision?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Frans
>
> On 22 June 2016 at 13:12, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
> Dear editors of the BP/Time/SSN/Coverage deliverable,
>
> In preparation of a next public working draft of the UCR document I would like to ask you for feedback on the requirements for your deliverable as specified in the UCR document. Section 6 list requirements grouped by deliverable. By now you will have stared long & hard at those requirements, and perhaps you concluded that some or not clear yet, or that something else is wrong. Perhaps requirements or even important use cases are missing?
>
> While we are working on a new batch of publications before TPAC, it would be nice if the requirements in the UCR document are (among) the ones you are actually working with. I think the public we are writing for deserves that coherence. I presume your deliverables will link back to the UCR document and explain how requirements are met or why requirements are not met. So if you think any changes are required in the UCR document resulting from your work on your deliverable, please inform me.
>
> Thanks,
> Frans
>