[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.
Cool, Cheers, Rex Carl Reed wrote: > Once I finish OGC meeting actions (from the meeting last week), should > have a draft ready for review by the middle of July or so. Pretty > straight forward to define using a GML profiling tool. > > Cheers > > Carl > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rex Brooks" <rexb@starbourne.com> > To: "Hans Jespersen" <Hans.Jespersen@SolaceSystems.com> > Cc: "McGarry, Donald P." <dmcgarry@mitre.org>; > <creed@opengeospatial.org>; <TIMOTHY.D.GILMORE@saic.com>; > <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org> > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 7:45 PM > Subject: Re: [emergency] RE: EDXL-DE 2.0 for the F2F - Objectivity, > Subjectivity and 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 >> >> > > > -- 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]