RE: [emergency] EDXL-DE 2.0 for the F2F - Objectivity, Subjectivity and Interpretation.

["Gilmore, Timothy" <TIMOTHY.D.GILMORE@saic.com>]

Sorry. You are correct. EDXL-DE not CAP. 

Timothy D. Gilmore | SAIC
Sr. Test Engineer | ILPSG | NIMS Support Center | 
IPAWS CA / NIMS STEP
phone: 606.274.2063 | fax: 606.274.2025
mobile: 606.219.7882 | email: gilmoret@us.saic.com  
Please consider the environment before printing this email.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jacob Westfall [mailto:jake@jpw.biz] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 10:55 AM
To: Gilmore, Timothy
Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [emergency] EDXL-DE 2.0 for the F2F - Objectivity,
Subjectivity and Interpretation.

> For CAP:
> For example, consider the <circle> element.  Is the following a
> "correct" <circle> element?
> <circle> 0, 0, 150000000 </circle>

This is invalid according to CAP.

> It certainly fits the descriptions in that element's comments:  (1)
it's
> in the form "latitude, longitude, radius"; (2) the central point
> conforms to WSG84; (3) the radius value is expressed in kilometers;
and

That is not what the CAP spec says, this language is coming from the
EDXL-DE spec and they differ on this element, which if is unintentional,
needs to be corrected.

-- 
jake@jpw.biz
--