RE: [emergency] Re: Circle and Polygon

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@intergraph.com>]

Not too cryptic.  Thanks Carl.  I look forward to 
seeing some examples posted here or URIs to same. 
I've asked someone here, Ignacio Guererro, about 
these topics and he advises me that if they bubble 
into something for which I need deeper analysis, 
I can forward items to him.  If you think this is 
something of that nature, I'll be happy to forward 
any items deemed relevant.

Slightly different topic: is a CAP document an IEP?
Reading through the various powerpoints, docs, etc., 
it appears that at the agency/vendor relationship 
per RFP, adoption or development of IEPs is a 
contractural obligation.  

len


From: Carl Reed OGC [mailto:creed@opengeospatial.org]

Yes, this is one easy way to deal with the issue. Many OGC interface specs 
have an optional parameter/flag (whatever you wish to call it) that allows 
optional/and-or vendor specific extensions to an interface/payload to meet 
specific requirements. If done correctly, then can be properly be validated 
and communicated. Also, in terms of ISO definitions for profiles and 
application schemas - if done correctly - what we end up having is/are CAP 
application schemas. This is very normal best practice in IT when dealing 
with XML based standards. Hope this is not too cryptic :-)