Subject: [Geopriv] RE: CRS URN

From: "Martin Thomson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:20:53 +1000

Hi Carl,

I'm sorry, I have to rise to the bait on this one.  It's been bugging me.

>     <gml:Point gml:id="point96" 
srsName="http://www.opengis.org/CRScatalogue.xml#epsg_4326">
>       <gml:pos>33.001111  96.68142</gml:pos>
>     </gml:Point>

Can someone please standardize:

    urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG:6.6:4326
    http://www.opengis.org/CRScatalogue.xml#epsg_4326
    urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG:4326:6.6
    urn:EPSG:geographicCRS:4326
    epsg:4326
    http://www.opengis.net/gml/srs/epsg.xml#4326
    www.epsg.org#4326
    urn:epsg:v6.6:coordinateReferenceSystem:4326
    urn:ogc:def:crs:OGC:1.3:CRS84

All of these have been taken from standards body publications.  It would be
nice to only have to deal with one, maybe two URNs; 4326 for 2D, 4979 for
3D.

PIDF-LO profile recommends the first, since that is published in OGC 05-010;
but now I see yet another.  Carl, are we right in using
"urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG:6.6:4326"?  Can we expect to see more forms in the
future? In other words, is there a need to do more than specify a common
form and define a pattern, or means of parsing the URN?

Cheers,
Martin

p.s.
>    <gml:location>

Incidentally, I thought that the location element was deprecated.
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: "Carl Reed OGC" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 17:47:50 -0600

RE: CRS URNMartin -

Have passed on your email to the CRS/GML gurus.  Should have a response in a day or so.

Regards

Carl

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Martin Thomson 
  To: Carl Reed OGC 
  Cc: 'GEOPRIV' 
  Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 5:20 PM
  Subject: RE: CRS URN

  Hi Carl, 

  All of these have been taken from standards body publications.  It would be nice to only have to deal with one, maybe two URNs; 4326 for 2D, 4979 for 3D.

  PIDF-LO profile recommends the first, since that is published in OGC 05-010; but now I see yet another.  Carl, are we right in using "urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG:6.6:4326"?  Can we expect to see more forms in the future? In other words, is there a need to do more than specify a common form and define a pattern, or means of parsing the URN?

  Cheers, 
  Martin 

  p.s.