On Sep 11, 2006, at 4:36 AM, creed@opengeospatial.org wrote:
> This conversation peaked my interest. I have just looked at RFC-3825.
> Not
> having been privy to all the original discussions and decisions, I am a
> fresh set of "eyes" looking at this document. I think what we have
> here is
> a failure to communicate due to ambiguous semantics in 3825. I may be
> wrong in this perception, but . . .
>
>
Why you would claim not to have been in the discussions?
On Jan 23, 2003, at 6:20 PM, Carl Reed wrote:
> Hi Mark
>
> Very good questions and a proper concern. I will pass this question on
> to a
> real "datum professional". One of our members is the Chairman of the
> EPSG
> Geodesy group. We also have an entire Working Group dedicated to
> Coordinate
> Reference Systems (which include datums - horizontal and vertical).
>
> Regards
>
> Carl
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Marc Linsner <mlinsner@cisco.com>
> To: Carl Reed <creediii@mindspring.com>
> Cc: John Schnizlein <jschnizl@cisco.com>; James Polk
> <jmpolk@cisco.com>;
> <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 8:16 AM
> Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lo-option-00.txt
>
>
>> Thank You! Those of us working on the draft certainly have been
>> looking for a 'datum expert' to help us out!
>>
>> Now you're 'on the hook'! :^)
>>
>> If I'm correct in my intrepretation of the epsg database, it appears
>> there
>> are 267 datums. If we use the epsg codes, they require 2 bytes
>> (actually 14
>> bits) to represent them in binary. You're implying that lining up
>> with epsg
>> is the proper thing to do, rather than creating news codes for each
>> datum
>> under the IANA umbrella. I'm struggling with the 'rumors on the
>> street'
>> that some of the datums may never be used - in fact only ~100 are
>> actively
>> used today. The part I'm struggling with is to utilize 2 bytes when
>> only
>> ~100 choices will be in use.
>>
>> Your thoughts one more time, please.
>>
>> -Marc Linsner-
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Carl Reed [mailto:creediii@mindspring.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 6:15 PM
>>> To: Marc Linsner
>>> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lo-option-00.txt
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Marc -
>>>
>>> There is no political issue related to a datum. There is no
>>> "correct" datum for a locale. There can be many datums for a
>>> given location - all of them correct. For example, in the US
>>> many localgovernments deal with WGS 84, NAD 27, and NAD 83 datums.
>>> Many local government planimetric databases are now in NAD 83.
>>> In order for anyone to process a location and make sure that it
>>> is georeferenced with a given planimetric or cadastral database,
>>> the datum needs to be known. This is not a political issue -
>>> simply a reality in the geospatial processing world
>>> - especially one in which interoperability of
>>> spatial data source (static and real time) is required.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Carl Reed
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:19:40 -0400
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 11 2006 - 10:36:29 EDT