[tdwg-content] New terms need resolution: geo:lat and geo:long
Steven J. Baskauf
steve.baskauf at vanderbilt.edu
Tue Jul 12 06:26:54 CEST 2011
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
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 at lists.tdwg.org
Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer
Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address:
VU Station B 351634
Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
2125 Stevenson Center
1161 21st Ave., S.
Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center
phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 343-6707
More information about the tdwg-content