[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency-comment] CAP-v1.2.xsd: why no global type definitions?
Am 13.01.2011 15:09, schrieb Jacob Westfall: >> My intention is not to create an alternate schema for CAP. I'd rather >> propose that the official cap schema is reorganised. Type definitions > > If you have other ideas on how to change or improve CAP that could be incorporated into this work, please send them to this list as well. I propose to harmonize cap:area(Type) and edxlde:targetAreaType. Both are used for area addressing and even if the semantics are different, the syntax could be on a common base (e.g. an xml schema included by both standards). I like how the area element in cap allows arbitrary geocodes specified by key-value-pairs. (We are using HASC and ISO-3166 in parallel.) In EDXL-DE you are bound to country and subdivision (what about further levels down the hierarchy like counties?) and with UN/Locode one specific geocode standard is hardcoded. Additionally I would propose to create regular expressions for cap:circle and cap:polygon. They should have a restriction of xsd:string in compliance with the CAP specification. > And we'd certainly recommend that if you want to get more involved in CAP development efforts, to join OASIS and the EM-TC. Maybe. This is an issue I have to discuss with my colleagues. Best regards, Matthias Lendholt -- [matthias.lendholt@gfz-potsdam.de] GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences CeGIT Centre for GeoInformation Technology Tel +49 331 288-1687; FAX +49 331 288-1703 Telegrafenberg A20, 14473 Potsdam, Germany Blog http://zeigertelegraph.gfz-potsdam.de Contact MECARD QR Code: http://goo.gl/488J
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]