- From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
- Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 15:14:45 +0200
- To: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
- Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFVDz43d1HivNxDs6Qk281m6Fe=0kKhF3WSpC9+jKAiq5wTBQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Rob, I was just trying to make sure we won't dilute the UCR document with requirements that already have been met. For example. being able to store spatial data on a hard disk is a requirement, but there is little sense in making that an explicit requirement. But what you say is true: Even if something is not too hard to do, but can be done in different ways there still is a need for guidance. I notice that the Dutch Base Registry use case <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#DutchBaseRegistry> is very much about this requirement, so I don't think we will need more use cases in the UCR document to support this requirement. Regards, Frans On 12 September 2016 at 08:46, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au> wrote: > Hi > > I think it is an existing practice, but there may well be a range of > possible implementations - and hence a best practice is relevant. Pretty > much all requirements have some implementation examples or are "possible" > so why would this particular one be not worth noting? Its certainly > characteristic of spatial data. I would have thought the underlying value > of a set of Requirements is to make sure that we dont recommend > oversimplifications that _stop_ things being possible, and the UC is a > description of the context of such Requirements to make sure they are > understood. Conversely, requirements can make sure there are simplified > default behaviours in a wealth of possibilities. > > Rob > > On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 at 22:05 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Discussion about UCR issue-70 >> <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/70> led to the idea that >> we might need an extra requirement for being able to work with geometry >> data with multiple CRSs. We can use this thread to discuss if that is a >> good idea. This new question is added to the tracker as issue-76 >> <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/76>. >> >> Different CRSs serve different purposes, so making geometric data >> available with multiple CRSs is an existing practice. It seems to me that >> if such a practice is already possible and there are no problems, then >> there little need to make this an explicit requirement. >> >> Are there examples where working with geometric data that have multiple >> CRSs is problematic? Such examples could work well to justify making this >> an explicit requirement. It could be that there are data formats or >> software that do not support the concept of a spatial thing being modelled >> by multiple geometries having different CRSs. In that case, it is really a >> problem that needs to be solved. >> >> Anyway, please speak your mind. >> >> Regards, >> Frans >> >
Received on Monday, 12 September 2016 13:15:17 UTC