Talk:Simple Features

Merge Simple Features and Well-known text

These two articles basically cover the same content. However, I'm not exactly sure if the ending result article should be Simple Features, but possibly Simple feature access (or SFA). The forward of the latest OGC document says:

This version supersedes all previous versions of OpenGIS® Simple Features Implementation Specification for
SQL, including portions of OGC 99-049 "OpenGIS Simple Features Specification for SQL Rev 1.1", OGC 99-050 "OpenGIS Simple Features Specification For OLE/COM Rev 1.1", OGC 99-054 “OpenGIS Simple Features Specification For CORBA Revision 1.1.”, and OGC 05-126 “OpenGIS Implementation Specification for
Geographic information - Simple feature access - Part 1:Common architecture”.
— OGC, Simple feature access - Part 1: Common architecture

So, basically, the "Simple Features" specification (and name) is superseded by Simple feature access. Thoughts/discussion/suggestions? +mt 03:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The WKT section could become a subsection of the Simple Features page. Would still be worth having an entry for WKT, pointing to the SF page.

With the upcoming inclusion of spatial support in SQL Server 2008 based on SFS v1.1.0, I think it's important that there remains an entry for WKT and previous incarnations of the standard - but agree that the main entry could be moved to SFA... Tanoshimi (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree strongly. The .PRJ file format (see Shapefile) which use this encoding was actually developed by ESRI to provide projection information. The format of the file happens to be Well-known text. "Simple Features" is a product of OpenGIS which replicates the .PRJ information. --192.251.13.62 (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

+1 for the comment from 192.251.13.62 -- WKT exists independently and should have a substantial independent entry. Leegee23 (talk) 09:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a year+ since I put the merge proposal up. I've learned more about the topics over that time. The two articles should be separate, but I think there might need to be more discussion of hierarchy between the two, among other issues. +mt 02:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Large number of articles that cover minutia

Most of these related articles are minutia about a set of standards that do not meet notability. One article might be worthwhile... on the other hand, the effort of killing them may be needless. I will look at rolling these all up into redirects to one or a few core articles, over time.Shajure (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]