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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency message

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

Subject: [emergency] RE: UOM

While technically correct, I wonder whether this change would be 
either necessary or worthwhile.  Right now we specify that <altitude> 
and <ceiling> are always expressed in feet in accordance with 
international aviation practice.

Adding a UOM attribute would seem redundant, unless we're implying 
that all CAP receivers should know how to convert among various 
units, in which case we're adding a complexity for every receiver 
that might more efficiently be addressed by the sender, once and for 

This would also be the only use of an attribute in the entire CAP 
specification.  Wherever we individually stand on the religious 
questions here, I think we can all agree that consistency is a virtue.

Mainly, though, I'm not seeing how this change would benefit the 
users.  Certainly it would be a symbolic act of compliance, but I 
don't really think either ISO or OGC is going be affected to any 
substantial degree, one way or the other.  Anyway, Eliot has already 
demonstrated CAP-to-GML transformations and this one seems pretty 

I'd suggest that we table this for future consideration.

- Art

At 3:29 PM -0700 1/6/04, Carl Reed wrote:
>In response to a CAP Issue #19, I would suggest that CAP encode a 
>uom attribute such as:
>     <app:height uom = "#feet">500</app:height>
>The message should then include a UOM definition for feet within the 
>same data package. This is the approach we use in the OGC in GML, 
>CRS definitions, etc. This approach is based on the OGC UOM 
>Recommendation Paper (Bobbitt, 2002) which in turn is based on 
>relevant ISO documents.

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