#162: OGC WKT-CRS reference
----------------------------+------------------------------
 Reporter:  markh           |      Owner:  cf-conventions@…
     Type:  defect          |     Status:  new
 Priority:  high            |  Milestone:
Component:  cf-conventions  |    Version:
 Keywords:                  |
----------------------------+------------------------------
 In reviewing the draft for CF 1.7, up to
 https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-
 conventions/commit/cf93c126736fe943adc4843cd31984e1eaa87ee0
 (Jul 18th 2017)

 I note that the references to Well Known Text Coordinate Reference Systems
 (WKT_CRS)

 link to an OGC resource, OGC_CTS
 http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/ct
 which does not define WKT_CRS or the encodings for that standard.

 With regard to the OGC, the definition of Coordinate Reference Systems
 should refer to
 http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/wkt-crs
 as an OGC information page, or
 http://docs.opengeospatial.org/is/12-063r5/12-063r5.html
 (currently the latest version)

 Indeed, this standard is a joint OGC - ISO standard, defining WKT_CRS and
 has been in the public domain for some time.  It is also defined by ISO as
 ISO19162.

 There is a push from the OGC to ensure that reference to this standard is
 taking place, not to previous, unmaintained cross references.  I have
 recently been asked to follow up on this by our local OGC representative,
 following their last technical committee meeting, as an explicit action.

 I propose that the references to OGC_CTS in the document be replaced with
 references to OGC_WKT_CRS and refer to the joint ISO, OGC standard, via
 the OGC who put the standard into the public domain, able to be read by
 all.

 http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/wkt-crs

 I think that it would be helpful to link to the maintained WKT_CRS
 standard before the CF1.7 document is published.

 I am marking this as a defect, I will prepare a github change to reflect
 this, once we have established that this is a useful course of action.

 Given the imminent nature of CF 1.7, please may I request a fairly swift
 response on whether this approach is deemed suitable by document
 maintainers?

 many thanks

 mark

--
Ticket URL: <https://cf-trac.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/162>
CF Metadata <http://cf-convention.github.io/>
CF Metadata

Reply via email to