Description
At this July 19th meeting of the Infrastructure Framework subcommittee, the member discussion included the following topics:
1. TOPIC: Is there a solution to the potential confusion caused by the apparent complexity of some aspects of our work, such as the abstraction layers in the geographic profile? (Answer: A best practices document may be a solution; however we need to keep the issue in mind and try to keep things simple. )
2. TOPIC: What is the status of the geographic (gsf) profile? (Answer: Lew and Don are coordinating on a few substantive schema changes, such as the inclusion of an interior ring, and a few specification editorial changes, such as what name we give to the profile of which we take ownership.)
3. TOPIC: How do we, and how should we, handle geographic location by name? (Answer: CIQ has ways of providing geographic names; however, since CIQ was designed mainly for uses of describing organizations, the GeoCode ValueListURI provided in the draft DE 2.0 schema seems to be a useful solution for allowing users to include their chosen list of geographic names. Eventually, the GeoCode element might be more appropriately a common type.)
