Re-using the URIs is a pretty good idea. However, there are a couple of
advantages to the current approach:
1. Abstraction: You can use "wgs84" to represent both the 2D and 3D
CRSes, depending on whether altitude is present
2. Brevity
--Richard
Ivan Shmakov wrote:
> I wonder, why the `crs=' parameter's value is opted to hold a
> ``CRS label'', and not an URI below, say, `urn:ogc:def:crs:'?
>
> It seems that the separate set of labels, which the proposed
> scheme needs, will require its own IANA management, while
> there's already a namespace for coordinate systems managed by
> OGC Naming Authority (ONA.)
>
> Also note that a geo: URI with the CRS URI specified maps to a
> GML `Point' in probably the most straightforward and simple way.
>
> FWIW, I'd suggest either requiring `crs=' to hold an URI, or to
> have a separate `crsURI=' parameter for that purpose.
>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
