I support this. Is there justification for also including geo:alt? In the same way that many records are now being generated by GPS assuming wgs84 and are hence labeled using geo:lat and geo:long, those same records often simultaneously have the altitude generated from GPS measurements. Requiring the user to provide two values (dwc:minimumElevationInMeters and dwc:maximumElevationInMeters) is in this case redundant; the geo:alt value is just repeated for the two existing dwc:elements.

Steve

On 7/4/2011 5:24 PM, John Wieczorek wrote:

Darwin Core Issues 82: http://goo.gl/XhxM

This issue arose in discussions on the tdwg-tag list (http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-tag/2010-August/000050.html) to which not everyone here has access. The issue tracker entry (URL above) summarizes the proposed solution to the problem, which is to re-use the W3C standard geographic coordinate terms geo:lat and geo:long from the namespace "http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#. These terms would be added as recommended terms organized within the Location class. They would not replace the existing terms dwc:decimalLatitude and dwc:decimalLongitude, which are not the same except under one special circumstance - that the dwc:geodeticDatum is WGS84 (or equivalent). Since this is not always the case, the existing Darwin Core terms cannot be omitted.

Open Issues:

Determine if there is any objection to include these two terms as recommended terms to use in the Darwin Core. _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content