W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > May 2017

RE: BP8: Note about axis order in WKT

From: <andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 07:46:13 +0000
To: <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
CC: <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>, <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
Message-ID: <EDFF15E839F79242AA55B1468C63DDA901EBCED7@S-DC-ESTG04-B.net1.cec.eu.int>
An additional consideration:

We are talking about coordinate axis-order across the BP document: should we add an entry in the glossary?

Andrea

----
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific / Technical Project Officer
European Commission DG JRC
Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
Unit B6 - Digital Economy
Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
21027 Ispra VA, Italy

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

----
The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
position of the European Commission.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu [mailto:andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 7:58 PM
>To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
>Cc: jeremy.tandy@gmail.com; l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl
>Subject: RE: BP8: Note about axis order in WKT
>
>Dear all,
>
>The note about axis order in WKT is now included in the ED (thanks, Linda):
>
>http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bp-crs
>
>It's the last note under point #3. For your convenience, I include it below:
>
>[[
>It is worth noting that, in the [SIMPLE-FEATURES] definition of WKT, the
>coordinate axis-order is by default longitude / latitude, irrespective of the
>coordinate reference system used. The same applies to EWKT (Extended
>WKT) - a PostGIS extension to WKT supported also by other GIS tools -, which
>includes a parameter (SRID) for specifying the coordinate reference system.
>
>For this reason, whenever using WKT to encode geometries, it is important
>that the reference WKT specification can be unambiguously determined.
>]]
>
>Could you please have a check, and verify whether you think it's correct /
>accurate enough? If this is not the case, please propose revised text.
>
>In particular, I would like to ask your feedback on the last sentence:
>
>[[
>For this reason, whenever using WKT to encode geometries, it is important
>that the reference WKT specification can be unambiguously determined.
>]]
>
>Ideally, this text needs to be extended to provide guidance on how to make
>it unambiguous which is the WKT "flavour" used. When using RDF +
>GeoSPARQL's WKT, datatype geosparql:wktLiteral does the job. But what
>about other WKT flavours? And what to do when not using an RDF
>representation?
>
>Thanks In advance
>
>Andrea
>
>----
>Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
>Scientific / Technical Project Officer
>European Commission DG JRC
>Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
>Unit B6 - Digital Economy
>Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
>21027 Ispra VA, Italy
>
>https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
>
>----
>The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
>not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
>position of the European Commission.
>
>
>________________________________________
>From: PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA)
>Sent: 01 May 2017 00:08
>To: Jeremy Tandy; Linda van den Brink
>Cc: SDW WG Public List
>Subject: BP8: Note about axis order in WKT
>
>Jeremy, Linda,
>
>As agreed, I've prepared a draft note for BP8 about how axis order is used in
>(the different flavours of) WKT.
>
>The relevant pull request (including also a number of editorial changes
>mainly on Section 12.2.1 and Appendix A):
>
>https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/769
>
>Thanks
>
>Andrea
>
>----
>Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
>Scientific / Technical Project Officer
>European Commission DG JRC
>Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
>Unit B6 - Digital Economy
>Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
>21027 Ispra VA, Italy
>
>https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
>
>----
>The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
>not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
>position of the European Commission.
Received on Thursday, 4 May 2017 07:46:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 4 May 2017 07:46:47 UTC