Re: [Geopriv] RE: [Ecrit] Location information in emergency sessioninitiation, need for time and accuracy?

Because I was not!! I was focusing on other standards related issues at
the time in the OGC and was also looking at PIDF-LO

Pretty simple, yes?

Carl

>
> 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 11:07:41 -0400 (EDT)