Clarifying the types of Frame transformations (and "authorities"?)

[MikelSalazar]

While I understand that we have to offer an open system to enable others to easily translate their frames in GeoPose, not having a proper list of frame transformations that we can use, makes it very difficult to implement the Advanced system.

Since all that these system produce at the end of the day is a position in 3D space (and two additional vectors for fordward an up vectors), could we not specify in the standard the types of frames that we need to implement (with the parameters that we need to include)? At the end of the day, we are doing something very similar for the orientations (Angles, Quaterions, YawPitchRoll, etc.)

[3DXScape]

The Advanced GeoPose needs revision or replacement. Standardization of the exchange of parameters as JSON by the OGC CRS SWG would be an optimal solution. Members of that SWG and geodecists and surveyors have strong opinions and deep knowledge. The GeoPose SWG deferred specification of reference frame and CRS in version 1.0 by defining the three fields “authority” = expert or defining group; “id” = if the expert group has an identifier scheme, use it; “parameters” = whatever the expert group requires to specify the reference frame and/or CRS. This is an empty container that we hoped could be filled with useful information. This “solution” has made almost no one happy and would be a prime area for improvement of GeoPose in a 2.0 (backwards compatibility breaking) new version.

[MikelSalazar]

I see... It seems a step in the right direction but I would like to see the proposal from the OGC CRS SWG (triple unpronounceable acronym 😅) before I say anything more. There might be a lot of small details that might affect how implementers feel about its use.