MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] RE: Notes form last GIS SC meeting
Ahhh, ok. I am following you. Now, I have one question based on what
you both said. And just so there is no confusion, because I know this
email came before another one I sent, I am NOT talking about CAP 1.0 -
I am talking about something to put in CAP 1.NEXT.
Dave, you said in #3 below that this is "what the US military does/is
trying to do - after learning the hard way." Does that mean, in your
opinion, that #3 is better than #2 for CAP 1.NEXT? After reading the
posts that both of you provided, architecturally, it seemed that #2
would represent a more flexible and accurate design, but would take
some extra coding. Extra code that at least seemed like would be worth
it.
Allen
On Mar 23, 2004, at 6:22 PM, David Danko wrote:
> There are three ways of doing this - from the very beginning we've
> followed
> the KISS principle - simple and unambiguous communication.
>
> 1. allow people to use any coordinate reference system and make them
> identify the one they used. The problem is not everyone receiving the
> message will be using a GIS and may not be able to handle that
> particular
> CRS. If they knew ahead of time what CRS will always be used they will
> be
> prepared for it.
>
> Or
> 2. (as Carl mentions below -Recommended XML Encoding of
> CRS Definitions) have the people use whatever they want and include the
> whole description of the CRS - Then there is no miscommunication about
> the
> definition of all the parameters in the CRS, trouble is, half the
> people
> wouldn't know what to do with them.
>
> Or
>
> 3. Make everyone use the same coordinate reference system - so there
> is no
> mis-communication - users would know what to expect, that's what we've
> done
> in this version of CAP. That's what the US military does/is trying to
> do -
> after learning the hard way.
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>
>