Re: [emergency] EM TC 08-26-03 Meeting Minutes

["Carl Reed" <creed@opengis.org>]

Hi Allen -

I think that there is a little confusion WRT symbology art work. The GIS SC
feels that we should not define the art work. However, there is no reason
that the art work could not be included in the comment sections of a set of
portrayal rules specified as an XML schema document. The actual definition
of the art work should best be left (our view) to the FGDC. With that in
mind, Eliot C met with Mike Domaratz at USGS who is the lead for the FGDC EM
Symbology effort. Mike shared that the FGDC EM symbology set will be out for
public review and comment in the October timeframe, so we will have an
opportunity for public comment. Also, the GIS SC discussed writing a
requirements document related to the use and communication of a standard EM
Symbology set. We have a simple use case written and are now looking at the
next steps in the process.

Regards

Carl
GIS SC Chair
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Wyke <emtc@nc.rr.com>
To: Cathy Subatch <CSubatch@eteam.com>
Cc: Emergency Management TC <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: [emergency] EM TC 08-26-03 Meeting Minutes


> Couple of questions/comments, and I apologize for not being on the call.
> Also, forgive my use of id attributes in my <snip> instances - I could
> not restrain myself :)
>
> <snip id="1">
> Continued discussions on symbology for emergency management.
>
>       * When talk about symbology not talking about the artwork, color
>         and content.
>       * Are referring to transport, communicate and interoperate.
>         Does the TC agree with that approach? Yes
> </snip>
>
> Why not? Why should this not include the artwork? Especially if it can
> be represented in SVG, preserving (if this was the concern) the XML
> nature of the effort. Personally, I think including the artwork, even if
> marked optional in the schema, is something we should do. Not saying
> this is something we must do - just that I am not clear as to why we
> would not want to do this.
>
> <snip id="2">
> Department of Homeland Security has taken the TC letter on board.
> </snip>
>
> What "letter"? Didn't see anything else in the minutes describing such.
>
> <snip id="3">
> There are other project using CAP as well.
> </snip>
>
> The MSG SC should attempt to gather a list of these and provide on their
> Website. This could certainly be useful to help show how adoption is
> going.
>
> <snip id="4">
> Feedback Process
>
> Rex can we get ideas from OASIS and see how it should work.
>
>       * In other groups someone took responsibility to review comments
>         and post to TC list (numbered and dated) and scheduled TC to
>         discuss at next TC call. Anyone who replied to that issue. That
>         response rely would be contained in the thread. Good was to
>         maintain continuity
>       * During course of discussion make decision as to whether to
>         change spec or not
>       * Not responsible for responding back to individual.
> Art so we use public comment list and TC list to list questions. One
> person puts in order and gives identity and then discussed at TC level.
> Art will take responsibility for reviewing the comments.
> </snip>
>
> I think this process is perfect, and is also what I am accustomed to in
> other efforts.
>
> Allen
>
>
> --
> R. Allen Wyke
> Chair, Emergency Management TC
> emtc@nc.rr.com
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/emergency
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/members/leave_workgro
up.php.
>