[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency-msg] Draft schemas from the meeting
Hi Gary (& others), The problem I see with treating Location
as just a container for GML information is that you lose the ability to capture
street addresses within the ScheduleInformation – unless you embed them
in the free-text “Description” element, which is not an optimal
solution. For example, we can no longer capture this sort of thing (from
the example in Section 3.3.1.4):
<ScheduleInformation scheduleType="RequestedArrival">
<DateTime>2006-03-24T09:00:00+10:00</DateTime>
<Location>
<Description>Innisfail Animal Refuge</Description>
<CIQInformation>
<xnal:Address>
<xnal:Country>
<xnal:Name>
</xnal:Country>
<xnal:AdministrativeArea>
<xnal:Name>QLD</xnal:Name>
</xnal:AdministrativeArea>
<xnal:Locality>
<xnal:Name>Innisfail</xnal:Name>
</xnal:Locality>
<xnal:Thoroughfare>
<xnal:NameElement> <xnal:Number>27</xnal:Number>
</xnal:Thoroughfare>
<xnal:PostCode>
<xnal:Identifier>4860</xnal:Identifier>
</xnal:PostCode>
</xnal:Address>
</CIQInformation>
</Location>
</ScheduleInformation> I suppose we could connect the
ScheduleInformation and CIQInformation objects directly in the ERM (without hanging
CIQInformation off Location, as it was previously) – but to my mind, grouping
CIQ addresses under Location makes sense, because an address is one valid way
of specifying a Location (a GML Point is another, etc…). Unless I’m mistaken, the ContactInformation
captured at the ResourceMessage level captures only address information for the
resource requester, owner, etc. – it doesn’t specify addresses for
sending resources. By the way (a question for the whole group),
is it intentional that ContactInformation is now sitting up in the corner of
the ERM by itself, not connected to anything? It is a bit confusing, as
it doesn’t show where it fits into the message structure. I noticed
that the sub-elements of ContactInformation have also been removed from all of
the message tables. The schema layout looks fine to me –
however, I would uncomment quite a few of the comments. J Having worked
through a lot of message examples, I tend to think that most of the things that
have been removed are still needed. Thanks, Karen. From:
Ham, Gary A [mailto:hamg@BATTELLE.ORG] Karen, I agree with you on the need for the
committee to address CIQ content item specifically. And yes, I was just
looking for a "straw man" CIQ profile. But,
"Party" and "Address" fill that need for now. Are there others
that the committee wants? Should be a primary question for Thursday. The difference between CIQInformation and
Location was that Location is (at least in my mind) the container for the
GML structure and CIQ is the structure for addressing, party naming, etc.
following the OASIS spec for such data. So, in my mind, CIQ was not part
of Location, nor was Location part of CIQInformation. Rather both were
potential parts of ContactInformationType along with Radio, and a generic
Description. The objective was to put a place in for both
standards, without having to directly mix them. It was just my
personal interpretation. I am not hard over on it, though. If there is
reason to do differently, I think the committee would be open to it. I
certainly am. Can I take it from your comments that
the rest of the schema layout is OK with you? After the
"types" schema concept was your idea, and a good one. Keep the
input rolling!!!! Thanks, R/s Gary A. Ham Senior Research Scientist Battelle Memorial Institute 540-288-5611 (office) 703-869-6241 (cell) "You
would be surprised what you can accomplish when you do not care who gets the
credit." - Harry S. Truman From:
Hi Gary, Thanks for sending the schemas.
I’m a bit confused about what you want me to do with the CIQ
information. It looks like the “CIQInformationType” type I
added is still there, just commented out. Could we just uncomment it for
now and use it “as is” until we develop a CIQ profile consisting of
an appropriately restricted subset of CIQ? Or are you asking me to
actually develop the CIQ profile? Unfortunately, I doubt that I could
work out all of the potential parts of CIQ we might need by myself – I
think this is probably an activity for the group as a whole to tackle. So
far, I have identified “Party” and “Address” as
potentially useful parts of CIQ, but there must be other elements as well. One thing that confuses me about the
latest ERM and schema is why CIQInformation has been taken out of
LocationType. Previously, CIQ Addresses were the main way used to specify
location (they are used in most if not all of the message examples). Was
there some discussion at the face-to-face surrounding this? Regards, Karen. From:
Ham, Gary A [mailto:hamg@BATTELLE.ORG] Folks, The attached schema files represent a completed (with
clearly defined placeholders for CIQ and Location) reference schema for RM.
Based on For Karen, If you would like to specifically add the
CIQ piece to the Types Schema (and tidy as necessary) I would appreciate
it. For all, If your mail server strips off the attached files,
just respond to my email hamg@battelle.org
and I will send access to a file download capability. Respectfully, Gary A. Ham Senior Research Scientist Battelle Memorial Institute 540-288-5611 (office) 703-869-6241 (cell) "You would be surprised what you can accomplish when
you do not care who gets the credit." - Harry S. Truman
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]