On Dec 15, 2006, at 17:23, Arnulf Christl wrote:
Sorry for post crossing again.
...cost prossing? coss prosting, must be mixing up axis order.
On Fri, December 15, 2006 18:08, Daniel Morissette wrote:
The beauty of cross-posting to multiple lists... I just replied to
the
osgeo-discuss fork of this thread asking for an update on what
happened
at OGC this week and just found my answer here.
Lets see whatever Carl Reed from OGC is going to put together
officially.
I banged into concrete walls talking about x being the horizontal
axis and
first, y being the vertical axis and second and potentially having a z
axis pointing up in coordinates tuples / triples. This will not do
as it
does not have an urn and does not comply to whatever OGP (Ex-EPSG)
does to
its coordinate axis order and has not rnu through the process of...
So nobody present at the OGC meeting saw the issue? It's not about
deciding which one is "correct" between x,y, or y,x, or lon,lat, or
lat,lon ... I could not care less as long as pick one and only one
and
go with it. Variable axis order based on SRS code like what has been
introduced in WMS 1.3 is the worst possible situation for
interoperability IMNSHO.
I am missing out on a practical alternative. If I get this right "we"
would need to create a repository with coordinate reference systems
that
go for x,y(,z) and go "our" own way. This will be a stony way so I
propose
in my stylish humble way to stick with 1.1.1 as long as we can and
undercover try to find that new database.
WMS 1.1.x has been a huge success, widely adopted and deployed
because
it was simple... simple to implement a server, and simple to
implement a
client... and WMS 1.3 broke that simplicity!
This is what you get when you design a spec in a committee where you
have to also broker relationships with other interests that have no
stake in the implementation/implementability of your spec. The 1.1
series was pretty well hammered out by implementors. 1.3 was heavily
influenced by non-implementors with some arm-twisting by EPSG purists
thrown in for good measure.
Therefore we will ignore 1.3 and mabe help out to make 2.0 be a real
solution.
I think this is what's happening anyway. There seems to be precious
little implementation of 1.3 other than by people who also happen to
need other features it offers.
There could always be a community (can you say "mass market"?)
profile that takes 1.1.1 and lays the good parts of 1.3 on top.
Allan
Here ya go... you got me going again... time to stop...
Sorry to be a pain.
Daniel
And now that everybody is leaving the bunker I will go into the
weekend
too and abstain from any electronic devices for - say 37.5 hours. That
should be enough to forget.
Regards,
PS:
Sorry for being so talkative but locking me up in strange environments
makes this happen - the only connection to the world being a fibre
cable
in the concrete wall...
Arnulf Christl wrote:
On Wed, December 13, 2006 18:55, Bob Basques wrote:
Arnulf Christl wrote:
Hello,
if you are aware of anything that might enhance information
regarding
the
great Axis Order Confusion that we are faced with in the
spatial realm
please feel free to add it to this Wiki page:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Axis_Order_Confusion
I did add a little tidbit to this related to 3D.
bobb
Thank you so much. I mean - it sounds stupid if I personally
thank you
for
doing this as it is something that comes naturally from a
community of
which I am just part. My "problem" is that I know that there are
quite a
few negative vibes around regarding what happened to WMS 1.3 with
respect
to the axis order (regardless of ommitting SLD) but it seems to
be hard
to
get those people to voice them yet again.
I have been at (yet another) discussion regarding what OGC is
going to
do
with respect to changing the axis order in 1.3 and later. It
seems like
they (we?) are going to stick with it. Why that? Because nobody is
against
it (here you come in) and it is the "right" way to do it. With
respect
to
the EPSG definitionn this is actually true. With respect to
GeoRSS it is
actually also true.
Nonetheless I wonder whether it really makes sense to write down
something
like (y,x,z) when noting something down including height. It does
not
look
as stupid if you code it in GeoRSS where height has its own tag
"elev".
Yeah, but what mess is this?
If I am alone with the approach of trying to leave x and y where
they
belong then I will just shut up and thats it. but we are then losing
contact to the standards body and I don't think this is a good idea.
If you are tired to talk about this publicly you can get me
directly to
rant away but please at least do this as I currently feel sort of
stupid
to have started this discussion (yet again) when it is completely
irrelevant to everybody. (I know that my hurt feelings are not a
compelling reason to become active but the prospect of breaking a
thousand
public WMS and drop downward omaptiability did not seem to do the
trick?!)
:-)
Thanks.
There is some discussion going as to having to break WMS 1.1.1
(and
WFS
and SFS and probably everything) in order to rectify this problem
which
I
think is the end of the world. Well, ok maybe not quite but it
will
make
things stall, so lets be reasonable on this.
Thanks,
--
**************** You can't be late until you show up.
***************
************ You never learn anything by doing it right.
************
*** War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's
left. ***
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Daniel Morissette
http://www.mapgears.com/
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
--
Arnulf Christl
http://www.ccgis.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Allan Doyle
+1.781.433.2695
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
