[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
GREAT email! I think you nailed it. There are certainly some things the GIS SC needs to look into. Per Eliot's earlier email (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/emergency-gis/200308/msg00008.html) about needing to step down as Chair, I think you have done an excellent job at beginning to describe one of the initial tasks the new Chair will have before them. Allen On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 10:07, Rex Brooks wrote: > 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 -- R. Allen Wyke Chair, Emergency Management TC emtc@nc.rr.com http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/emergency
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]