[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 all. 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 unambiguous. 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. > >Cheers > >Carl >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]