> [BA] Any recommendations on how we should resolve the remaining aspects of Issue #3?
I still don't really know what resolution means. That lies at the heart of the problem. Hence my preference to defer to James P. (or one of his colleagues) at this point.
As far as I can extract from the history of the issue, there are two possible interpretations, and maybe more:
(1) If resolution is roughly analogous to uncertainty, then I don't see an easy way to provide a GML->3825 mapping. Following the same process that I used for the uncertainty mappings just leads to weird results (the 32 degree crossover problem).
The 3825->GML mapping is easy enough for this case, and it could be based on the old examples, but there are a few minor mathematical errors (for instance, the very first point states that res2 is -1 to 128, which is inconsistent with res5 at -64 to -80; I think that res2 should be 0 to -128).
(2) If resolution is simply a way of encoding significant digits (i.e., 3 bits =~ 1 decimal digit; 10 bits =~ 3 decimal digits), then the mapping is simply a GML point<->3825 mapping, but the examples would have to be entirely replaced.
I don't have any particular preference.
--Martin
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
