-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
crs
or srs
field in sensorReport
#266
Comments
Yes, we should not redo existing work. |
These are folders. Eg see
A search and conversion tool is at https://epsg.io/.
I already hear tanks rumbling (Pulkovo is the Russian observatory, and I guess this CRS is a military one from the Cold War era)
https://epsg.org/ seems to be the official register of EPSG geodetic dataset
BTW searched schema.org, there's nothing about |
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_reference_system it appears that Spatial Reference System and Coordinate Reference System can be used interchangeably and that a geodetic datum such as WGS84 is an instance of a spatial reference system or coordinate reference system. |
Spatial references include place-names (gazetteers) and spatial indexes, such as DGGS, as well as coordinates. So SRS is the more general term, while CRS is reserved for coordinates. |
@dr-shorthair, would gs1:coordinateReferenceSystem (or gs1:coordinateSystem for short) be a better name for that property? |
In ISO 19111 (and the EPSG database model) a coordinate-system is a set of axes, directions and scales. A coordinate-reference-system is a coordinate-system which is also anchored to a (usually geodetic) datum. So it would not be appropriate to use the former as a shorthand for the latter. A geodetic system is tied to the Earth, rather than another planet. If GS1 is OK being tied to one planet, then probably OK. |
Today at the meeting agreed:
|
Dear @VladimirAlexiev: I just reread/reflected on this issue once again and think that (at least :-)) I need your help to fully grasp the impact of this suggestion. First, I was wondering why we don’t define which system must be used or at least specify a default? For instance, IETF RFC 5870 (defining the Geo URI scheme) does the latter, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5870#section-3.4.1 ("A URI instance uses the default WGS-84 CRS if the 'crs' parameter is either missing or contains the value of 'wgs84'.") Wouldn't that be an easier/less complex approach? Second, would you mind to insert one or two illustrative example(s) of how a sensorReport with this property would actually look like? That would be really helpful. Thanks for your support! |
Dear @RalphTro |
Here's an example:
sensorElement: [
"sensorMetadata": {"time": "2021-05-20T12:23:34+00:00"},
"sensorReport": {"type": "Angle", "component": "Latitude", "value": 42.698334, "uom": "DD"},
"sensorReport": {"type": "Angle", "component": "Longitude", "value": 23.319941, "uom": "DD"}
]
sensorElement: [
"sensorMetadata": {"time": "2021-05-20T12:23:34+00:00"},
"sensorReport": {"type": "Angle", "component": "Latitude", "value": 42.698334, "uom": "DD",
"coordinateReferenceSystem": "http://www.opengis.net/def/crs/OGC/1.3/CRS84"},
"sensorReport": {"type": "Angle", "component": "Longitude", "value": 23.319941, "uom": "DD",
"coordinateReferenceSystem": "http://www.opengis.net/def/crs/OGC/1.3/CRS84"}
]
sensorElement: [
"sensorMetadata": {"time": "2021-05-20T12:23:34+00:00"},
"sensorReport": {"type": "Length", "component": "Northing", "value": -477979.89, "uom": "MTR",
"coordinateReferenceSystem": "http://www.opengis.net/def/crs/EPSG/0/27700"},
"sensorReport": {"type": "Length", "component": "Easting", "value": 2477583.57, "uom": "MTR",
"coordinateReferenceSystem": "http://www.opengis.net/def/crs/EPSG/0/27700"}
] TODO:
BTW, typing |
@VladimirAlexiev and @mgh128 - thanks so much for your additions/explanations! Much clearer to me now. |
Unfortunately, I was not able to meet with my contact in the petroleum industry this week. I will try to follow up with him today. |
@DuckScapePhilip EPSG comes from the petroleum industry, so hopefully https://epsg.org and https://epsg.io already give us all the info we need. @RalphTro it would be nice if you browse around some more, and include some text to let EPCIS users know where to find I have no idea about the following (@dr-shorthair could you provide some advice on these points?)
Cheers! |
There is some discussion about updating the OGC naming rules to simplify the URIs - see opengeospatial/om-swg#136 In the OGC definitions service, it is very sparsely populated away from the
The multiplicity of NAD CRSs is probably because they are defined for states or regions. |
Dear @dr-shorthair, In light of what @VladimirAlexiev suggested, I made a quick research on other relevant systems, and found e.g. the following: The EPSG registry (http://www.epsg-registry.org/) as "...the traditional source of CRS definitions in GIS (...)", uses EPSG codes (e.g. EPSG::4258) to refer to CRS definitions, i.e. no URIs. Are you aware of 'official'/well-established URIs we can recommend with good conscience? Thanks a lot in advance for your help/support in this, @dr-shorthair ! |
ETRS89 == epsg:4258 == http://www.opengis.net/def/crs/EPSG/0/4258 In general the EPSG identifiers are the most widely known and used and likely to be persistent. The /OGC/ entities listed above represent a set of 'gaps' in the EPSG dataset, as of the time they were coined. The other significant issue is that many web-mapping systems assume that the earth is a sphere, whereas the geodetic systems are based on ellipsoids. epsg:3785 is an attempt to define the typical web-mapping projection ("Web mercator") as a formal CRS. |
I'll send you an invoice. |
Thanks a lot for your quick answer, @dr-shorthair! Really glad that you have joined this discussion. My last remaining question at this moment in time is: which CRS URIs would you recommend the group to include in the standard (as non-normative examples to help/assist our users)? |
Give my regards to @philarcher (at GS1) if you know him |
GREAT - we will use your suggestion as a basis for decision in our next group call. A bit anxious about the prospect of getting your invoice now though...;-) |
Waving at @dr-shorthair :-) |
@RalphTro I edited my example #266 (comment) to use I think CBV should recommend the OGC URLs because they incorporate all of EPSG, and are used in GeoSPARQL. |
Thanks, @VladimirAlexiev ! |
Tasks and status as of 21 Sep 2021:
@CraigRe I think you should provide in CBV guidance on how to express geographic coordinates:
|
(As suggested at today's call):
Related to #264 "if we have
Latitude, Longitude
(in decimal degrees), maybe we should also haveEasting, Northing
(in meters, often used by UK Ordnance Survey)".But it's not enough to just say "decimal degrees or meters".
These also depend on the adopted origin, the geographic projection, axis orientation, etc.
OGC has done a lot of work on Coordinate Reference Systems.
As per qudt/qudt-public-repo#379, neither QUDT nor CBV should attempt to redo this work.
So maybe we need yet another
sensorReport
field,crs
orsrs
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: