OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency-gis message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [emergency-gis] Note about GML /[emergency-gis] Re:[emergency] Kent State Symbology Study


Hi All,

I took the liberty of pasting in Eliot's replies to Bill's message 
"Note on GML" and Bill's reply to Allen's Forwarding of David Hall's 
message about the Kent State Symbology Study and Carl's observations 
on that topic because I want to address all of these issues. ( FYI: 
This is exactly opposite of my usual policy of deleting messages in 
threads from the bottom when replying to avoid just such overly long 
and tedious messages. So to relieve this somewhat I am deleting most 
of the remaining header info on the messages.)

First, I looked at the Kent State material and downloaded the pdf(s), 
as I have also looked at the latest work on GML, and come to the 
conclusion that the subsets of these specifications which apply to EM 
need to be sorted, codified and examined to see what else may be 
needed to optimize the correlation of markup language with symbology 
for EM.

I would be willing to help work on this, but I am already well and 
truly stretched so how much time and energy I could put into this 
remains to be seen. I will try to find overlaps between this work and 
work to which I have previously committed.

I would like to respectfully suggest that this effort might best be 
headed by Carl Reed whose work stands to have to have the largest 
intersection with the needs of this area for EM. To that end I think 
I can manage to help draft a set of requirements as has been 
suggested for something along the lines of an Implementors Note for 
using CAP mapped to GML.

I said in the impromptu GIS SC telecon yesterday, before Eliot and I 
got cut off in mid sentence and I eventually gave up the wait for his 
return, that I would write to Carl about perhaps heading up this 
effort and decided to draft this note instead. I still hope Eliot can 
post whatever he was about to say about his efforts to put together a 
CAP2GML converter.

Regardless, I've gone and stepped in it.

One last note, as Allen has suggested, this significantly overlaps 
the Infrastructure SC work, so it would be advantageous if we could 
take this up in the next TC meeting to see if we can iron out a way 
to proceed.

Ciao,
Rex


Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 05:17:10 -0400
To: emergency-gis@lists.oasis-open.org
From: Eliot Christian <echristi@usgs.gov>

Subject: [emergency-gis] Note about GML

At 02:56 PM 7/29/2003 +0000, Bill Schroeder wrote:
>The proposal distriubted by Elliot last week has set a GML 3 
>profile, the CAP schema would be an application schema based on 
>that, it would  extend those generic types to the CAP features.

Just to set the record straight, I did consider but did
not pursue the idea of making the CAP schema a GML 3
profile. Instead, I just referenced some few elements
(and associated attributes) defined in GML versions
2 and 3.

This approach was undertaken merely to demonstrate one
way in which CAP alert messages are able to be handled
in mapping applications that are GML-capable. Such a
demonstration might lead to an Implementors Note, but
I don't anticipate proposing a standard GML profile for
CAP, nor a normative statement in CAP about GML.



Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 04:58:54 -0400
To: emergency-gis@lists.oasis-open.org,Carl Reed <creed@opengis.org>
From: Eliot Christian <echristi@usgs.gov>

Subject: [emergency-gis] Symbology standards and the OASIS EM TC

At 08:29 PM 8/5/2003 -0700, Bill Schroeder wrote:
>[...]
>I think this is a real issue/problem/opportunity.  In my opinion
>the problem is one of those that is in need of a champion and more
>importantly one with $ to staff and work the symbol interoperability
>effort.

Yes, resources for additional standards work is one central issue.

The other issue is to get a clear statement of exactly what standards
work not already underway could be/should be done by the OASIS EM TC.

We have heard interest in standardization of specific sets of symbols.
It has been noted that FGDC is doing work in that area, as are some
agencies. We also heard interest in stronger Federal coordination
among the various agencies and groups that are dealing with symbols
pertinent to emergency management. To me, this seems something that
would be best approached by working through the FGDC.

We have also heard interest in how to specify symbols as part of a
style when displaying a map. OGC developed a standard called Style
Descriptor Language. Carl Reed also points out that OGC is working
on symbology metadata and on handling libraries of symbols.

Allen has asked for a summary of areas of collaboration and vision.
Personally, I would sharpen that request to ask for a statement
of requirements addressing whatever additional standards work is
felt to be needed with regard to symbology for emergency management.

We cannot really begin to muster resources until we have an agreed
statement of what standards work is envisioned. Perhaps Bill or Carl
may be willing to do a first draft of such a requirements statement?

Eliot


At 8:29 PM -0700 8/5/03, Bill Schroeder wrote:
>Allen/Elliot/Matt:
>
>I sat in on the a brief from FGDC and they are working on a release of the
>symbols for comment in October.
>
>I asked the presenter (Michael Domarantz) if they were considering the
>digital exchange of symbols and standards for interoperability and he
>suggested that would not be undertaken by this working group.  It appeared
>to me to be outside their scope and beyond their resources.
>
>I think this is a real issue/problem/opportunity.  In my opinion the problem
>is one of those that is in need of a champion and more importantly one with
>$ to staff and work the symbol interoperability effort. 
>
>Do we want to seek a champion/funds/charter or join with an organization
>which can do this (OGC)?   May be a question for the Exec Board.
>
>Bill
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Allen Wyke [mailto:emtc@nc.rr.com]
>Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 8:45 PM
>To: Carl Reed
>Cc: emergency-gis@lists.oasis-open.org; IF SC
>Subject: [emergency-gis] Re: [emergency] Kent State Symbology Study
>
>On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 17:28, Carl Reed wrote:
>>  The topic of symbology may be an opportunity for the EM TC and the OGC to
>>  collaborate. Our membership has done considerable work in the "how" of
>>  interoperability for encoding and communicating symbology. We do not deal
>>  with the actual definitions (content) for symbols. Symbology definition is
>>  better done by groups such as USGS, FEMA, NIMA, APWA, and so forth.
>
>I agree - this is a good place to collaborate. I actually have been
>exchanging emails with Scott McAfee at DHS, whom Bill S (ESRI) has been
>communicating with as well. Scott had mentioned that he was working with
>you guys on this.
>
>From an EM TC perspective, I think the proper approach would be for the
>GIS SC to formally take on this effort - "effort" being defined as
>summarizing the areas of collaboration and vision, so that the greater
>EM TC can understand the overall purpose. Is that something you can
>initiate with Bill and Eliot? Or maybe, we just did that :)
>
>Any thoughts on how best to proceed would be appreciated.
>
>>  For example, we have an OpenGIS specification called "Style Layer
>>  Descriptor" (SLD). SLD - using XML Schema - provides a mechanism for
>>  expressing symbology portrayal rules to an application client or to a
>>  server. The reason our members defined and adopted SLD as a specification
>is
>>  that when a user is requesting spatial data from multiple servers, how can
>>  the user be assured that they will see the spatial data rendered in a
>common
>>  consistent manner using symbology that they are used to?
>>
>>  We are also working on various other aspects related to interoperability
>and
>>  symbology, such as symbology metadata and how to build, maintain, and
>access
>>  a library of symbol libraries.
>>
>>  The SLD specification can be found on the public portion of our web site
>>  (www.opengis.org).
>
>Ok, so I think you might have answered my initial question of where to
>start here. This certainly sounds like a VERY exciting and applicable
>area of interest, although I would defer to the experts on if it is the
>only area (I assume not) for the EM TC.
>
>That being said, I have cross posted this with the EMIF SC, because this
>certainly spans the topic of the greater EM infrastructure. I think the
>question to the EMIF that stimulates the potential answer you have
>provided is, "with the presence of an agreed upon symbologize standard,
>what is the best way to exchange data that includes those symbols that
>maintains the intent of the originating source?" If SLD is potentially
>an answer to that question, which is sounds like it is, then the next
>step would be to work with the EMIF to make sure it found its
>appropriate home in their specs.
>
>This is only my personal initial thought based on what you have
>provided. I will defer to Rick and his group to determine/evaluate if
>SLD is part of their picture, and to the GIS SC to probe you for
>additional areas of collaboration. In the meantime, if you have any
>other ideas, thoughts, or recommendations, we certainly welcome the
>insight.
>
>Allen
>
>>  I look forward to exploring this potential area of collaboration.
>>
>>  Regards
>>
>>  Carl Reed
>>  OGC
>>
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>  From: Allen Wyke <emtc@nc.rr.com>
>>  To: David Hall <dhall@federalsupportsystems.com>
>>  Cc: Emergency Management TC <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>;
>>  <emergency-gis@lists.oasis-open.org>
>>  Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 7:35 PM
>>  Subject: Re: [emergency] Kent State Symbology Study
>>
>>
>>  > This is actually an excellent report. I have cross posted it with the
>>  > GIS SC.
>>  >
>>  > Eliot/Bill: I recommend we attempt to contact Dr. Dymon
>>  > (udymon@kent.edu) and see if he can speak at one of your con calls. In
>>  > conjunction, we should try and ascertain the status of the work at FEMA,
>>  > if they received this paper, and get their thoughts/direction. The goal
>>  > would be to specify where we (the EM TC) plans to draw its symbology
>>  > from, even if it is in a working draft state.
>>  >
>>  > Thoughts?
>>  >
>>  > Allen
>>  >
>>  > On Tue, 2003-07-01 at 13:36, David Hall wrote:
>>  > > The following is a link to the Emergency symbology study performed by
>>  > > Kent State for FEMA that was mentioned in today's XML committee call.
>>  > >
>  > > > http://dept.kent.edu/geography/Dymon/symbology.htm
>>  > >
>>  > >
>>  > > ******************************
>>  > > David Hall
>>  > > Federal Support Systems
>>  > > 703-627-0215
>>  > > 703-832-5664 fax
>>  > > -----------------------------
>>  > > System Engineering
>>  > > Information Security
>>  > > Internet Software Systems
>>  > > Project Management
>>  > > ******************************
>>  > >
>>  > --
>>  > R. Allen Wyke
>>  > Chair, Emergency Management TC
>>  > emtc@nc.rr.com
>>  > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/emergency
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
>>
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/members/leave_workgro
>>  up.php
>>  >
>--
>R. Allen Wyke
>Chair, Emergency Management TC
>emtc@nc.rr.com
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/emergency

-- 
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]