Thanks for the response to my questions. I understand the document stage
issue and apologize for getting OGC Member comments into the process so
late.
Responses to your questions etc are below.
Regards
Carl
>
> Carl,
>
> I've been thinking about the comments that you forwarded to the list.
> The draft is now in AUTH48, so we're more or less in a state of the
> document where we're only correcting spelling errors etc., but not
> change the content significantly.
>
> More about the specific topics:
>
> - Altitude clarification:
>
> Section 2 includes that "... altitudes below the WGS-84 reference geoid
> are signed negative...".
>
> For clarification, i could add the single word "depth" to the sentence
> cited, so that it reads: "... altitudes below the WGS-84 reference geoid
> (depths) are signed negative..."
>
> Would that help?
Yes, this would help.
>
> - Lines and Polygons:
>
> It was agreed very early in the process (and confirmed by WG chairs)
> that Lines and Polygons would be out of scope for the document. PIDF-LO
> already covers such elements.
Understand. Thanks.
>
> - ISO 6709:
>
> (Disclaimer: I have only access to the German DIN EN 6709:2009 here, so
> my knowledge might be limited to that version of the standard)
>
> Like Martin, i admit i heard of that format for the first time in your
> posting - blind spot for me as well (and i haven't found any discussion
> about it in the GEOPRIV working group archives either). I think that the
> mapping from a "geo" URI to an ISO6709 representation is trivial, and
> can be performed without additional instructions in the draft.
Perhaps just a note that geo URI can be mapped to 6709 as a recognition of
6709 would remove majority of concerns. FYI - GML incorporates 6709.
>
> (Side note: I'm a little bit concerned about the option in the string
> representation to leave out the CRS definition - particularly with the
> option to have positive depths as well as positive elevation - how would
> i know whether 40.44+70.2+221.5/ is 222.5 meters above or below whatever
> reference plane? I fully agree with Martin that DMS representations are
> dangerous, particularly to "non-GIS" users)
Yes, I also agree that DMS representation is not useful. And totally agree
with your CRS note.
>
> For the XML mapping of ISO6709, we have already specified a mapping to
> another, more recent ISO standard (GML) in the document - so it should
> be easy to map the ISO GML to ISO 6709 XML (particularly because GPL
> seems to be based on GML types anyway).
>
> For those reason, i think that we shouldn't include another mapping in
> the document. If there's demand for the specification of such a mapping,
> we could still do it in a seperate Information document.
Agreed.
>
> Alex
>
>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
