RE: [emergency] CAP 1.1 Standard and ITU-T Recommendation

["Alessandro Triglia" <sandro@oss.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eliot Christian [mailto:echristian@usgs.gov] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 17:41
> To: Elysa Jones; Alessandro Triglia; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: Olivier DUBUISSON; John Larmouth; Carl Reed
> Subject: RE: [emergency] CAP 1.1 Standard and ITU-T Recommendation
> 
> At 04:49 PM 4/26/2007, Elysa Jones wrote:
> >Hi Alessandro, Thanks so much for joining the fray, welcome. 
>  Please see the current list discussion Subject:  CAP 1.1 
> Standard and  ITU-T Recommendation - TC Task 3 (ASN.1) where 
> a lively discussion is underway.
> 
> Olivier and John pointed out that I was not taking into 
> account the ENCODING-CONTROL section at the end of the ASN.1 
> module. This will assure that the values as actually 
> transmitted are the same case as specified in the current standard.


Correct.

I have checked the ASN.1 in X.cap1, and I think it is correct and matches
the XML schema perfectly.

I have a few minor comments on the X.cap1 document.  I will send them
tomorrow morning.  (Is there a special format for sending comments to the
TC?  If not, I will use something similar to the ISO/IEC JTC 1 comment
matrix.)


> 
> With regard to the embedded explanatory text on data element 
> semantics, I certainly agree that neither the XML Schema nor 
> the ASN.1 Specification should be a primary source for this 
> textual material. It should be carried primarily in the data 
> dictionary under the heading "Notes or Value Domain", and the 
> current standard mostly adheres to that practice. However, 
> there there are a couple of notes pertaining to geographic 
> matters that are not in the data dictionary per se, although 
> they are in the standard. (Specifically, "coordinate pair" is 
> defined in 1.5 Terminology; "WGS-84" is described in 3.3.1 
> WGS-84 Note.) The ASN.1 embedded explanatory text can simply 
> refer to those notes as well.


The ASN.1 spec (unlike the XML schema in CAP 1.1) contains many in-line
comments, which may lead to the expectation that those comments are intended
to be complete, but in fact they are not.  They need to be revisited.

Alessandro


> 
> My point about the "polygon coordinates winding order" is 
> also not an issue for the ASN.1, as John noted. I would say 
> it is also not an immediate issue for the standard as it sits 
> at version 1.1. Perhaps the next version of the standard 
> could simply note in the data dictionary entry for the 
> polygon element: "the winding order of coordinates is 
> counter-clockwise".
> 
> Eliot 
>