Art -
Thanks for the detailed response. I have not read the entire thread yet, so
others may have already responded.
Anyway, I believe that the intent at this point is to capture the "whats".
Every discussion we have had to date in the GIS SC has been more focused on
the what and not the how. That said, I believe that in the GIS SC
conversations there is an implicit assumption that a consistent approach to
the how is preferable to a fragmented approach. There is also a belief that
the how also needs to be consistent with the standards work being done in
the IETF, NENA (for NG 911), and for ORCHESTRA (The European project).
As to Coordinate Reference systems, the newest version of KML 2.2 that the
OGC is working on will support multiple CRS and not just WGS 84? In this
case, there is no requirement nor assumption that the client device needs to
know or care about all possible CRS's. WGS 84 is still the default. Also, I
was recently in China. In China, all standards that deal with geospatial
MUST support the new Chinese geoid. This requirement is mandated by law.
Given that OASIS has a strong presence in China, I think we should listen to
that requirement.
Promises to be a good dialogue!
Thanks again
Carl