Sorry Chris, my previous posts tonight were in response to Ron Lake's
and others posts about relative coordinate systems.
I re-read your comments and see your suggestion of a local coordinate
system is kinda what I was seeking. ( thoughts about URI semantics are
a digression)
Anselm Hook wrote:
> Chris Goad writes :
> 3d modeling formalisms support this (and full GML does too), but
GeoRSS, GeoJSON, and KML do not. This is probably an argument for
going to represententations built for 3d in the first place for AR
applications where local coordinates play a necessary role, but
concievably there is a niche for our lightweight geo standards
extended by addition of a transformation node.
I concur. It's convenient to have an idea of a local coordinate
system. I've always been slightly surprised by how the GML community
ignored the work of the VRML community. Convenience concepts such as
transform nodes, multiple instancing of geometry and behavior nodes
make expressing ideas more succinct.
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
