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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency-msg message

[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]