of a specific datum name (which may not have international agreement if
defined by this group!). The EPSG code for WGS 84 2d is 4326. Or you could
use the normative name as defined in the EPSG database. There is an online
registry so that any code/name could be resolved by the application and all
of the pertinent (and normative) CRS metadata is made accessible.
This is the approach we use in the OGC for any and all CRS references in any
of our standards - as does ISO and more recently OASIS.
And finally, WGS 84 is not purely a datum. WGS 84 comprises a standard
coordinate frame for the Earth, a standard spheroidal reference surface (the
datum or reference ellipsoid) for raw altitude data, and a gravitational
equipotential surface (the geoid) that defines the nominal sea level.
Cheers
Carl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tatham Oddie" <tatham@oddie.com.au>
To: "'Andy Mabbett'" <andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk>; "'GEOPRIV'"
<geopriv@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] The "geo" URI draft
> Hi Andy,
>
> I personally think the datum information should be part of the URI content
> and not part of the scheme as proposed by "geo-wgs84:" and "geo-fooo:"
>
> Applications are registered at the OS and browser levels to a particular
> scheme, which in this case would be "geo". Pushing datum information to
> the
> scheme means that an application will have to register for every possible
> datum that it supports and provide no capacity for it to attempt to handle
> other datums. It would be somewhat akin to having each different HTTP
> authentication mechanism exposed as "http-basic:", "http-ntlm:", etc.
>
> Further, it would require an additional IANA registration every time a new
> datum was considered (http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html).
>
> As such, I'd propose to stick to something like "geo:wgs84:12.34,56.78"
> and
> "geo:foo:12.34,56.78".
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tatham Oddie
> au mob: +61 414 275 989, us cell: +1 213 422 7068, skype: tathamoddie,
> landline: +61 2 8011 3982, fax: +61 2 9475 5172
> my business: tixi.com.au - Ticketing without the dramas
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Andy Mabbett
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 June 2009 7:00 AM
> To: GEOPRIV
> Subject: [Geopriv] The "geo" URI draft
>
> In message <4A2578CE.1050204@viagenie.ca>, Simon Perreault
> <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> writes
>
>>Making the parameter mandatory, even maybe promoting it to a hierarchy
>>element, would probably result in better interoperability. How would
>>people feel about this?
>>
>>geo:wgs84:12.34,56.78
>>geo:foooo:12.34,56.78
>
> and...
>
> In message <4A257C16.5020800@stpeter.im>, Peter Saint-Andre
> <stpeter@stpeter.im> writes
>
>>Why not "wgs84:12.34,56.78"?
>
>
> Either model would be OK by me; as would:
>
> geo-wgs84:12.34,56.78
> geo-foooo:12.34,56.78
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
