Thanks. The GeoSMS folks are also quite interested in the geo-URI work (as
are the Koreans and the u-City initiative) and wish to work for consistency.
Also, in terms of a registry of CRS values, why not use the OGP/EPSG
registry?
Regards
Carl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Mayrhofer" <alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at>
To: "Carl Reed" <creed@opengeospatial.org>; <geopriv@ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 1:47 AM
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] geo-URI and geoSMS - heads-up
>> There is an activity that started in Taiwan to specify a
>> standard for geo enabled SMS messages. They brought this work
>> into the OGC and the OGC is now the forum for continued
>> discussions. I made the geoSMS community aware of the work on
>> geo-URI. I suspect that that one or two geoSMS folks will be
>> subscribing to the GeoPriv WG and hoping to collaborate on
>> the geo-URI document so that the approaches are consistent.
>
> Carl,
>
> Thanks for the heads-up. The geo-URI draft has now got some
> post-working-group comments from the responsible Area Director (mostly
> about the registry for CRS values - they recommend a seperate IANA
> registry for this).
>
> I've been pretty busy over the last few days, but i hope to update the
> draft later this week to adress those comments (which should then allow
> the draft to progress further on the publishing process, towards IESG
> Evaluation..)
>
> I'm more than happy to hear the ideas from the geo-enabled SMS message
> group. If it doesn't fit perfectly into the GROPRIV WG, we can also take
> this off-list.
>
> Alex
>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
