[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.
HAVE and RM used a paper by Carl we published in our own document repository as the reference. It was, in essence, an early version of the OASIS Where Profile, which we should really push for over the summer even if it is not usually a great time of year to get work done, but I think it provides a certain advantage wrt OGC. What do think the chances are of getting it out in late August, Carl? One thing we must do is sign off on the latest version and not put ourselves in the position of asking for changes at the same time that we're trying to push our own work forward. Cheers, Rex Hans Jespersen wrote: > I believe that we envisioned much more for OASIS Where than just > GML-based Points and Polygons so this might just be a terminology > mismatch. > > If all you expect to do by Wednesday is to put the same GML coordinate > system used in RM into DE then we are fine. > > If you want to put more advanced concepts like multi-points, line > segments, or indicating the order of accuracy for multiple ways of > describing the same location then we are not yet there. > > -hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: McGarry, Donald P. [mailto:dmcgarry@mitre.org] > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 5:50 PM > To: Hans Jespersen; 'rexb@starbourne.com'; 'creed@opengeospatial.org' > Cc: 'TIMOTHY.D.GILMORE@saic.com'; 'emergency@lists.oasis-open.org' > Subject: Re: [emergency] RE: EDXL-DE 2.0 for the F2F - Objectivity, > Subjectivity and Interpretation. > > I was under the impression that the gml profile that was used in have > and rm was geo oasis where... > Don McGarry > The MITRE Corp. > dmcgarry@mitre.org > (315) 838-2669 Office > (703) 595-9375 Cell > Sent via Blackberry > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Hans Jespersen <Hans.Jespersen@SolaceSystems.com> > To: McGarry, Donald P.; rexb@starbourne.com <rexb@starbourne.com>; Carl > Reed <creed@opengeospatial.org> > Cc: Gilmore, Timothy <TIMOTHY.D.GILMORE@saic.com>; > emergency@lists.oasis-open.org <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org> > Sent: Thu Jun 24 20:48:27 2010 > Subject: RE: [emergency] RE: EDXL-DE 2.0 for the F2F - Objectivity, > Subjectivity and Interpretation. > > I agree but if we want a sample schema by next Wednesday for EDXL DE 2.0 > I think we may be out of luck as the OASIS Where profile is not yet at > the point of producing angle brackets. > > -hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: McGarry, Donald P. [mailto:dmcgarry@mitre.org] > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 10:06 AM > To: rexb@starbourne.com; Carl Reed > Cc: Gilmore, Timothy; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [emergency] RE: EDXL-DE 2.0 for the F2F - Objectivity, > Subjectivity and Interpretation. > > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > > > -- 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]