Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Summary: Needs 8 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
Comment (2010-04-13 for -)
Authors emailed Graham Klyne directly and he just confirms that his Expert
Review is done (approved).
Previously a DISCUSS from Lisa:
Similarly, is there a possible way to limit 'u' so that the URIs are more
frequently comparable? I'm making up stuff at this point, but lets say there's
a few classes of devices that half roughly 1m uncertainty, 10m uncertainty and
100m uncertainty. If those classes of devices used those values rather than an
uncertainty of 7.4m or 14m, then u values would match up more frequently.
For example, geo:13.4125,103.8667;u=9 and geo:13.4125,103.8667;u=10 are
completely different by the current rules. But if implementers were encouraged
to prefer u=1, u=10 and u=100 over other values, then both implementers would
choose u=10 as close enough, and the URIs would be equivalent. Just add text
that encourages those values (or other even better values, with the authors'
greater domain knowledge).
Final point: I found some excellent advice here:
"Provide more examples of actual URIs or URNs than you think people will need.
Along with an example, explain how that example would be assigned, derived, and
if applicable, dereferenced."
Comment (2010-04-15 for -)
The acronym WGS should be expanded on its first use in the Abstract.
Comment (2010-02-18 for -)
I have handed my DISCUSS issues over to Alexey
Comment (2010-04-14 for -07)
The document contains numerous grammatical and typographical errors.
Comment (2010-02-18 for -07)
Please add an explicit statement on whether case is sensitive when comparing
parameter names and values.