[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] RE: EDXL-DE 2.0 for the F2F - Objectivity, Subjectivityand Interpretation.
I was assuming again, sorry. The assumption: any change in the circle (or any Location element) must ipso facto take place in the OASIS where profile. I would certainly not support having a balkanization of Location definitions with a tweak here and there. Cheers, Rex McGarry, Donald P. wrote: > So this is on the list. I was planning to advocate moving to our GeoOASIS where GML profile for targetarea geographic objects. > > -Don > Office: 315-838-2669 > Cell: 703-595-9375 > dmcgarry@mitre.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 1:03 PM > To: Carl Reed > Cc: McGarry, Donald P.; Gilmore, Timothy; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [emergency] RE: EDXL-DE 2.0 for the F2F - Objectivity, Subjectivity and Interpretation. > > 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 > > > > -- Rex Brooks President, CEO Starbourne Communications Design GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel: 510-898-0670
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]