Re: [emergency-gis] GML and Symbol Discussions

[Allen Wyke <emtc@nc.rr.com>]

Wanted to provide some feedback on part of this email...

On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 10:56, bschroeder@esri.com wrote: 
> 2) Symbols
> What is our goal and/or requirement vis a vis emergency management symbols? 
I think the "goal" is to satisfy a need. The "need" is the desire to
ensure that any symbolic representation shared across standards,
platforms, implementations, whatever is able to maintain, with as much
accuracy as possible, its original intent. Like most situations, you can
accomplish this in 3 ways. 

1. You can standardize on the symbols themselves: basically say, this is
the sign of a fire and unless you are using this, it doesn't mean fire.
This is a great thing to aspire to (think phone jacks), however there
steps to get there and the work at DHS is making advancements in this
area.

2. You can on the translation of the symbols: you call it "toe-mot-toe"
and I call it "toe-may-toe", but its the same thing. This approach
essentially allows one symbol to be mapped to/into another, so that the
original intent is preserved. Think the purpose of XSLT in transforming
one XML dialect into another.

3. Combination of both: this is probably the "goal" we need to aspire
too. One that starts to put a stake in the ground as to what symbols we,
as the EM community, wish to standardize on, but that we are aware we
need a mechanism to map existing representations into each other and
vice versa in a way that ensures we maintain the original intent. I
*think* there is an aspect of the DHS work that treads on this approach,
but admit I am not informed enough yet to be able to make a definitive
statement of such. They have the concept of "categories" that appear to
inherit certain commonalities among symbols in the same category.

Back to your question on the goal. The real goal, because I kinda lied
when I stated the goal was a need (that's mostly true, but what is the
need and why is it there?), is based on the realization that a visual
representation of something, if done properly, is MUCH easier to
understand/comprehend than text - our minds just process it faster.
Because of this and the need to empower the EM professionals with tools
that make their decision making process easier and more informed,
symbols quickly emerge as a way, with little pictures, to convey
information between parties.

> Is the goal to adopt and/or develop a standard symbol set?

The goal is to find a solution. If that means adopting one that fits our
need, such as the work at DHS (which sounds good so far), then that is
great. If it means we have to work on our own standard or potentially
extend an existing standard, then that could certainly be the path as
well. 
> To then take the adopted set and develop a  specification on how to employ it?
If adopted, then yes. Here is where the EMIF SC really stretches its legs and provides a TON of value to our work. They are looking at the big picture, and they can make sure symbology is properly placed in that picture in a way that maximizes its benefits and yet gives it room to grow.

Allen


-- 
R. Allen Wyke
Chair, Emergency Management TC
emtc@nc.rr.com
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/emergency