Improve intro

Author: busstoptaktik

ruminations/010-rumination.md

@@ -19,21 +19,27 @@ The text is long, and the subject both sprawling and convoluted. But the gist of
 
 ## Introduction
 
-As seen from the perspective of someone who narrowly escaped becoming part of the CEN TC-287 standardisation group at its inception back in the 1990s, and first started participating in ISO TC-211 during the work towards the 2019 version, ISO 19111 **appears to come from** a conceptual world view that had very little to do with geodesy, but nevertheless made much sense for 1995-era coordinate users: A world view, which with only a mild dose of exaggeration, can be described as:
+With the personal luck of (narrowly) escaping becoming part of the geospatial standardization efforts at their inception back in the 1990's, I first started participating in the work around ISO-19111 "Referencing by Coordinates" when its 2019 revision was well under way.
+
+Hence, my impression of the conceptual world view behind especially the earliest versions, is based on anecdotal evidence - although largely supported by excavation of archaeological traces still visible in the current revision.
+
+With only a slight dose of exaggeration, that world view can be described in brief as follows:
 
 > Geodetic coordinate systems, like their mathematical namesakes, are built on an axiomatic foundation, an eternal, immutable ether called WGS84. And **ANY** coordinate system can be strictly defined as a 7 parameter Helmert transformation from WGS84.
->
-Hence, when the apparent center of mass, related to the ED50 datum differs by approximately 200 m from that of WGS84, then it's because the Wise Fathers of ED50 had figured "wouldn't it be nice with a coordinate system somewhat offset from the earth's centre-of-mass?".
 
-Then they went to locate the centre-of-mass, surveyed an exactly defined differential distance from there, drove a stake into the earth's inner core at exactly that position, and declared with celebration: "From here, we will survey our continent"
+**In the light of that world view,** when the apparent center of mass, related to the ED50 datum differs by approximately 200 m from that of WGS84, then it's because the Wise Fathers of ED50 had figured *"wouldn't it be nice with a coordinate system somewhat offset from the earth's centre-of-mass?".*
+
+So they equipped an expedition, and went underground to locate the earth's centre-of-mass. Once found, they surveyed an exactly defined differential distance from there, drove a stake into the earth's inner core at exactly that position, and declared with celebration: **"From here, we will survey our continent".**
+
+While surficially nonsensical, this world view is actually quite reasonable for the 1990's era, where the expectable georeference accuracy was at the metre level: It is simple to implement and sufficiently accurate.
 
-With steadily increasing accuracy requirements, and with the ubiquity of GNSS, the conceptual world view of that era has long ago ceased being generally feasible. And with 19111(2019), the standard took a huge leap towards a more geodetically realistic, while still end user applicable, conceptual world view.
+But with steadily increasing accuracy requirements, and with the ubiquity of GNSS, the conceptual world view of that era has long ago ceased being generally feasible. And with 19111(2019), the standard took huge leaps toward a more geodetically realistic, while still end user applicable, conceptual world view.
 
-In my humble opinion, it is, however, still possible to take further steps in this direction, so it is my hope that an upcoming revision of 19111 will take some of these steps, in addition to the obvious task of repairing bugs, limitations and/or inaccuracies.
+In my humble opinion, it is, however, still possible to take further steps in this direction, so it is my hope that an upcoming revision of 19111 will take some of these steps, in addition to the obvious task of repairing bugs, relaxing constraints, and clarify ambiguities.
 
-Also, as will hopefully beome clear in the following, such steps may lead towards great conceptual simplification, by not having to paper over differences between the conceptual world view and the geodetic realities. Perhaps, we may deprecate, and even (in a later revision) entirely eliminate these aspects.
+Also, as will hopefully become clear in the following, such steps may lead toward great conceptual simplification, by not having to paper over differences between the conceptual world view and the geodetic realities. Perhaps, we may deprecate, and even (in a later revision) entirely eliminate these aspects.
 
-Below, I try to identify some of these actionable items. Except for a few cases, I will not present ready-baked solutions, rather try to open up for discussion. Not only discussion of the specific matters, but also the overall problem that ISO 19111 is way too careful in its language.
+Below, I try to identify some immediately actionable items. Except for a few cases, I will not present ready-baked solutions, rather try to open up for discussion. Not only discussion of the specific matters, but also the overall problem that ISO 19111 is way too careful in its language.
 
 As 19111 (along with 19161) describes the relation between coordinates as numbers, and locations in the physical world, it should speak in geodetic (and hence empirical) terms.