Re: [emergency-gis] Groups - Suggested changes for CAP 2.0 - CRSand GML (Best Practices for CRS - for OASIS.doc) uploaded

[Art Botterell <acb@incident.com>]

Carl -

With respect, I believe CAP is already recognized by the 
international OASIS community as a truly international standard, and 
that any suggestion to the contrary ought to be supported by evidence.

And while I have no objection to considering extensions to CAP, I 
think they should be driven by specific stated requirements.  It 
would help me if you could summarize what specific problems we need 
to solve here.

In particular, what would be the practical benefit of supporting 
multiple reference systems in addition to WGS-84?  Wouldn't it be 
more efficient to have any coordinate conversions done 
once-and-for-all by the originators than to have them duplicated, 
perhaps thousands of times and potentially with differing outcomes, 
by the various receivers?  And if we have the WGS-84 representations, 
what's the value of duplicating that information?

Not opposed to enhancements per se, but I hope we can guard against 
creeping featuritis by making sure any additions actually represent a 
cost/benefit improvement for the implementers.  We've seen so many 
good products become bloated by a series of well-intentioned WIBNI 
("wouldn't it be nice if") feature-extensions...

- Art


At 7:03 PM +0000 1/31/05, creed@opengeospatial.org wrote:
>RE: Suggested Change Requests for CAP 2.0
>
>  -- Dr Carl Reed
>
>The document named Suggested changes for CAP 2.0 - CRS and GML (Best
>Practices for CRS - for OASIS.doc) has been submitted by Dr Carl Reed to
>the EM GIS SC document repository.
>
>Document Description:
>If CAP is to be considered by the international community as a truly
>international standard, then both normative and informational narrative
>will need to added to the document. Much of this has to do with observing
>existing international best practices and standards for dealing with
>geospatial content  including coordinate reference systems and geometry
>(areas). However, at the same time we do not wish to harm the simplicity
>of implementation of the current specification nor do we wish to break
>backwards compatibility.
>
>Therefore, the following is recommended for discussion as change requests
>for CAP 2.0.
>
>
>Download Document:
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency-gis/download.php/11254/Best%20Practices%20for%20CRS%20-%20for%20OASIS.doc
>
>View Document Details:
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency-gis/document.php?document_id=11254
>
>
>PLEASE NOTE:  If the above links do not work for you, your email application
>may be breaking the link into two pieces.  You may be able to copy and paste
>the entire link address into the address field of your web browser.
>
>-OASIS Open Administration