ON COORDINATES: a) what you describe is more specific than a geolocation (which may be expressed by other means than coordinates). I suggest to give the data type the more specific name:
geocoordinates b) with respect to precision: I don't understand the reasoning to stick this to degrees. Since we are describing locations on an ellipsoid, the longitude to distance and latitude to distance conversions are different, and they are different for different points on earth. See example on en.wikipedia, a minute at equator is 1843 versus 1855 m. In practice the potential location error will be given in a distance measure. You want to convert it to degrees in a highly complex conversion. Why? The back conversion will usually be non-ambiguous (since the backconversion will always describe an ellipsis rather than a circle). c) Furthermore, as before, I believe that precision and accuracy will usually both contribute to the error your are interested in and which is typically described in geolocations having a +/- addition. I suggest to replace precision with errorradius or uncertaintyradius or uncertaintyInMeters which would be the great circle distance. To somewhat simplify, the unit could be fixed to m. Here is some work done in our area (biodiversity): http://code.google.com/p/darwincore/wiki/Location The term there is http://terms.gbif.org/wiki/dwc:coordinateUncertaintyInMeters d) the correct name for "globe" is "Geodetic datum" or "geodetic system" (which is more than the globe). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodetic_system or http://terms.gbif.org/wiki/dwc:geodeticDatum. WGS 84 (as a wikidata item) is a valid geodetic datum or system. Both terms are equally correct. "Globe" is not correct. Gregor _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
