Re: [emergency-comment] CAP-v1.2.xsd: why no global type definitions?

[Matthias Lendholt <matthias.lendholt@gfz-potsdam.de>]

Am 13.01.2011 15:09, schrieb Jacob Westfall:
>> My intention is not to create an alternate schema for CAP. I'd rather
>> propose that the official cap schema is reorganised. Type definitions
>
> If you have other ideas on how to change or improve CAP that could be incorporated into this work, please send them to this list as well.

I propose to harmonize cap:area(Type) and edxlde:targetAreaType. Both 
are used for area addressing and even if the semantics are different, 
the syntax could be on a common base (e.g. an xml schema included by 
both standards). I like how the area element in cap allows arbitrary 
geocodes specified by key-value-pairs. (We are using HASC and ISO-3166 
in parallel.) In EDXL-DE you are bound to country and subdivision (what 
about further levels down the hierarchy like counties?) and with 
UN/Locode one specific geocode standard is hardcoded.

Additionally I would propose to create regular expressions for 
cap:circle and cap:polygon. They should have a restriction of xsd:string 
in compliance with the CAP specification.


> And we'd certainly recommend that if you want to get more involved in CAP development efforts, to join OASIS and the EM-TC.

Maybe. This is an issue I have to discuss with my colleagues.

Best regards,
Matthias Lendholt

-- 
[matthias.lendholt@gfz-potsdam.de]
GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences
CeGIT Centre for GeoInformation Technology
Tel +49 331 288-1687; FAX +49 331 288-1703
Telegrafenberg A20, 14473 Potsdam, Germany
Blog http://zeigertelegraph.gfz-potsdam.de
Contact MECARD QR Code: http://goo.gl/488J