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: Re: [emergency] RE: UOM

I would also agree that we should consider for the future. 

On that note, probably the best way to do it, rather than it being an
attribute, would be to do it in the schema. Basically, when <ceiling> or
<altitude> is defined in the schema, assign it a new derived datatype
called "feet" (which would be defined elsewhere in the schema). Of
course, there may already be a standard out there that has a different
and better approach, but again - probably best for future consideration.


On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 11:59, Art Botterell wrote:
> 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
> >
> 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_workgroup.php.
R. Allen Wyke
Chair, OASIS Emergency Management Technical Committee

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