[OSGeo-Discuss] Re: [Geowanking] Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Input regarding Axis Order Confusion

Allan Doyle adoyle at eogeo.org
Fri Dec 15 14:53:24 PST 2006

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.


>> 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: discuss-unsubscribe at mail.osgeo.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help at mail.osgeo.org
>> --
>> Daniel Morissette
>> http://www.mapgears.com/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geowanking mailing list
>> Geowanking at lists.burri.to
>> http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
> -- 
> Arnulf Christl
> http://www.ccgis.de
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe at mail.osgeo.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help at mail.osgeo.org

Allan Doyle
adoyle at eogeo.org

More information about the Discuss mailing list