[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency-msg] RE: Rewrite of Section 1.3--Issue 9 (onIssuesList from start)
Thanks Alessandro, That's an interesting idea. I'd be happier if we could do that. I think we need to check with Carl and Mary to see if this is feasible, since I am not sure if the profile has already been accepted/approved by both OpenGeopspatial Consortium and OASIS. If all we have to do is massage Carl's proposal and submit it for Public Comment Simultaneously with EDXL-HAVE, that would be a good solution. Cheers, Rex At 8:58 AM -0400 9/10/07, Alessandro Triglia wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com] >> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 08:41 >> To: Rex Brooks; Alessandro Triglia; 'Timothy Grapes'; 'Gary >> Ham'; Werner.Joerg@ieminc.com >> Cc: emergency-msg@lists.oasis-open.org; >> creed@opengeospatial.org; ejones@warningsystems.com; >> Dwarkanath, Sukumar >> Subject: [emergency-msg] RE: Rewrite of Section 1.3--Issue 9 >> (on IssuesList from start) >> >> Sorry for replying to my own message, but since I'm at my >> best in the morning at about this time, I wanted to keep this >> discussion in a single thread for now. >> >> Having looked back through the Best Practices document, I >> have to say that I think this should not be used as a >> normative reference because it is the proposal for the OASIS >> Profile of GML rather than as a separate approved specification. >> It was specifically written up for EDXL-HAVE and EDXL-RM, but >> constructed to be of much wider applicability across OASIS >> Specifications that require geospatial coordinate systems on >> a global basis. >> >> This is very much a case where a year can really seem longer >> because I am now recalling discussions we had in the EDXL-RM >> face-to-face last December, around this issue. My thinking at >> this point is that, as Alessandro suggests, we need to >> address geo-oasis:WhereType consistently and at a specification level. >> >> I think that it needs to be separate from any given >> specification, though, so that it can be referenced as a >> normative included specification, rather than as a section in >> another domain (or >> topic) -specific document. > > >I think it doesn't have to be in the same **document** as RM or HAVE, but >couldn't it be in a separate document in the same bundle for RM or HAVE, >which we send for public review? Otherwise we might have to delay both RM >and HAVE until this other specification is approved. > > >> >> Otherwise, I am very uncomfortable with having such an >> important part of several specifications normatively defined >> within another specification. >> >> One of the reasons why I want to discuss this with Mary and >> Ram is that I think we are asking for all sorts of trouble >> down the road if we include it this way. Unforunately, I >> don't know how we can raise it to approved specification >> status without having to wait a long time for both OASIS and >> the Open Geospatial Consortium to approve the profile. >> >> Also, BTW, I think most of Alessandro's textual edits are a >> good improvement on my first draft, but I have quibbles with >> the structure, which I think should mirror the way that the >> spec is organized, > > >I flattened the description because it looked too formal for an >Introduction. Obviously, it isn't actually formal when you read it, and so >it ends up looking too complicated for its purposes. > >Alessandro -- 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]