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

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

I concur.

Cheers,
Rex

Carl Reed wrote:
> Not to stir the pot, but if nay (minor) changes are made to the 
> definition of the circle element, would be nice to at least structure 
> the content to be consistent with the PIDF-LO definition so that CAP 
> and EDXL 2.0s are aligned with NENA Next Generation 911 specification 
> of the use the Location Object.
> To whit:
>
> The circular area is used for coordinates in two-dimensional CRSs to 
> describe uncertainty about a point. The definition is based on the 
> one-dimensional geometry in GML, gml:CircleByCenterPoint.
>
> The centre point of a circular area shall be specified using a two 
> dimensional CRS; in three dimensions, the orientation of the circle 
> cannot be specified correctly using this representation. A point with 
> uncertainty that is specified in three dimensions SHOULD use the 
> Sphere shape type.
>
>   <gs:Circle srsName="urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4326"
>       xmlns:gs="http://www.opengis.net/pidflo/1.0";
>       xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml";>
>     <gml:pos>
>       42.5463 -73.2512
>     </gml:pos>
>     <gml:radius uom="urn:ogc:def:uom:EPSG::9001">
>       850.24
>     </gml:radius>
>   </gs:Circle>
> The only change I would recommend would be to use an http URI for the 
> CRS and uom definitions. Anyway, please note the lat-long order and 
> the use of white space. GML uses white space.
> Also, FYI, this schema snippet for circle is almost identical to what 
> the schema will look like in the GML OASIS where document.
> Cheers
> Carl
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* McGarry, Donald P. <mailto:dmcgarry@mitre.org>
>     *To:* Gilmore, Timothy <mailto:TIMOTHY.D.GILMORE@saic.com> ;
>     emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
>     <mailto:emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>
>     *Sent:* Thursday, June 24, 2010 3:54 AM
>     *Subject:* [emergency] RE: EDXL-DE 2.0 for the F2F - Objectivity,
>     Subjectivity and Interpretation.
>
>     Tim-
>
>     I wholeheartedly agree!
>
>     I did bring this up for discussion earlier and we agreed that a
>     circle /should/ be
>
>     <circle>lat’,’lon<space>radius</circle>
>
>     Which makes comment 1 and the example wrong (extra space in both
>     between the lat and lon).
>
>     This is on the issues list for 2.0. I will add the point about the
>     radius, because as stated it should be an *unsigned* integer with
>     a maximum value less than that of a normal signed or unsigned int.
>
>     Are you suggesting that we use different wording for the OPTIONAL,
>     MAY use multiple? That was a little confusing to me at first, so
>     input would be appreciated.
>
>     I have added these topics to the issues list
>
>     -Don
>
>     Office: 315-838-2669
>
>     Cell: 703-595-9375
>
>     dmcgarry@mitre.org <mailto:dmcgarry@mitre.org>
>
>     *From:* Gilmore, Timothy [mailto:TIMOTHY.D.GILMORE@saic.com]
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, June 23, 2010 10:24 AM
>     *To:* emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
>     *Subject:* [emergency] EDXL-DE 2.0 for the F2F - Objectivity,
>     Subjectivity and Interpretation.
>
>     All,
>
>     Some of the things we look at are objectivity and subjectivity due
>     to our accreditation under the American Association for Laboratory
>     Accreditation (A2LA) for NIMS STEP and IPAWS Conformity Assessment
>     (CA) testing. Many elements under the OASIS EDXL suite of
>     standards including CAP use words such as “SHOULD” and “MAY” which
>     are clearly subjective in nature. One of our engineers pointed out
>     some issues that we should keep in mind when going over the
>     EDXL-DE 2.0 document during the F2F.
>
>     For CAP:
>
>     /What we're looking for are rules or constraints that are open to
>     interpretation, or not fully specified, rather than being
>     completely "nailed down."/
>
>     / /
>
>     /For example, consider the <circle> element. Is the following a
>     "correct" <circle> element?/
>
>     / /
>
>     / <circle> 0, 0, 150000000 </circle>/
>
>     / /
>
>     /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/
>
>     /(4) it is a properly escaped XML string./
>
>     / /
>
>     /Then again, the radius of the circle is approximately the
>     distance between the Earth and the Sun. Note that the given
>     definition includes the word "geographic" (twice!) and that the
>     center of the circle is specified as longitude and latitude, all
>     of which indicates to me that the circle ought be to Earth-bound.
>     Someone else may interpret the standard differently, and the
>     standard doesn't put a real limit on the radius of the circle./
>
>     / /
>
>     /The point is that the standard doesn't really specify enough for
>     a tester to determine whether or not a <circle> element is
>     conforming./
>
>     /The tester has to make up his (or her!) own rules to complete the
>     test./
>
>     /Multiple testers will certainly come to different conclusions,
>     and all will be correct to within the subjectivity allowed by the
>     standard./
>
>     / /
>
>     /(And that all said, note that the given example doesn't match the
>     form given in comment 1; the comma between the longitude and the
>     radius is missing. Since all of section 3 of this standard is
>     normative, this is a bug in this standard.)/
>
>     / /
>
>     /For another example, consider the <senderRole> element. The
>     standard says "OPTIONAL, MAY use multiple." Despite the words
>     "OPTIONAL" and "MAY," an individual tester can determine without a
>     doubt whether a given message contains zero or more <senderRole>
>     elements, and an infinite number of testers (all else being equal)
>     will come to exactly the same conclusion./
>
>     Perhaps something to think about at the F2F.
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     *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
>     <mailto:gilmoret@us.saic.com>
>
>     P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>

-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670