[georss] Can GeoRSS and KML converge on a geometry encoding?

[Sean Gillies]

Ok.

So, georss:where has an implicit srsName and srsDimension (2), yes?
Because as I understand it the GML spec recommends against so
attributing points and positions or position lists. Wouldn't that
element be a better place to explicitly define srsName and srsDimension?

I think I'm starting to come around on georss:elev. Without it, a
producer has to either understand srsName and srsDimension, or needs
something like georss:where3d (with an implicit srsDimension=3).

Thanks for the discussion. Like I said, I missed it the first time
around, and the list archive wasn't very helpful.

Sean

Joshua Lieberman wrote:
> Sean,
> 
> 3D position lists are entirely allowed in GeoRSS GML. It simply  
> requires specifying a 3D CRS, just as in GML and eventually in KML.  
> This is an additional option from GeoRSS Simple, which doesn't provide  
> a place for additional CRS's.
> 
> The 3D equivalent to epsg:4326 I believe is epsg:4979:
> 
> 
> <georss:where>
> <gml:Point>
> <gml:pos srsName="epsg:4979" srsDimension="3">42.3453 -156.2342 45</ 
> gml:pos>
> </gml:Point>
> </georss:where>
> 
> --Josh
> 
> On Apr 10, 2008, at 11:03 AM, Sean Gillies wrote:
> 
>> I'm not thinking about arcs and hemispherical patches, or 3D
>> visualization, but about dimensionality of positions. 3D position  
>> lists
>> are not allowed in GeoRSS GML, are allowed in KML 2.2, and I imagine
>> that they will be an option in KML 3. Some of you have the inside  
>> track
>> on KML, right? I'm just suggesting we could steer GeoRSS to where  
>> KML is
>> headed.
>>
>> #geo-web-rest on freenode
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/geo-web-rest/web/atom-geo-interop-the-2nd
>>
>> Sean
>>
>> Joshua Lieberman wrote:
>>> GeoRSS GML already uses GML 3 geometries, just not all possibilities.
>>> KML, if/when it supports GML 3, is unlikely as well to support all
>>> possible GML 3 geometries. There are specific options in KML for 3D
>>> handling, though, which are not in GML at all. I was just suggesting
>>> earlier that providing a place for them to be expressed in GeoRSS
>>> might make it more straightforward for GE to handle feeds and KML
>>> together.
>>>
>>> Sean, are you and Charlie going to make some sort of a conference
>>> line / IRC channel available tomorrow, or should we try to do
>>> something more inclusive at another time (e.g. next week).
>>>
>>> -Josh
>>>
>>> On Apr 10, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Sean Gillies wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andrew, you reported in your blog last fall that KML may switch over
>>>> to
>>>> GML 3 geometries. If that were true, wouldn't it make sense for the
>>>> next
>>>> iteration of GeoRSS to recommend the same practice? Seems to me this
>>>> could simplify the situation for feed and KML processors.
>>>>
>>>> Sean