|
Sorry, I cannot post to the -msg group so am reposting to the entire
TC.
Carl
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: [emergency-msg] Confusion about RM location
elements
All -
Apologies for having "disappeared" for the last several weeks. Events have
overtaken me in terms of travel and OGC related project work. Now that I have
finished the IETF GML Geoshape Application Schema and it has been formally
approved by the OGC and the IETF, time to move onto the OASIS GML Profile.
The OGC members provided some help to me on the OASIS GML Profile but I am
not an XML expert by any flight of fancy. Also, I have been coordinating with a
related NIEM effort to hopefully insure some harmonization with that work.
However, this may be somewhat difficult in that a geospatial.xsd that
conforms to NIEM naming and design rules has wrapper types (and occasionally
proxy global elements) for geospatial types defined in "external"
standards-based geospatial schemas.
That said, I do have newer .xsd files and will be updating the actual
document this week.
Finally, it would be nice to make sure that the OASIS geometry definitions
are aligned with those used in other standards organizations - a also with KML
:-) A note on the last comment: Google has offered to bring KML into the OGC to
become an OGC Best Practices document AND to harmonize KML with the OGC/ISO
Coordinate Reference System (CRS) standards and the GML 3.1.1 Geometry schemas.
KML currently uses GML 2.1.2 for expressing geometry (although the GML namespace
is never referenced). And KML also uses CIQ/xAL for addressing (without
referencing the OASIS namespace).
Regards
Carl
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:59
PM
Subject: [emergency-msg] Confusion about
RM location elements
Dear
all,
I’m in the process of updating the
RM message schemas and examples, and checking consistency with the latest
version of the matrix and data dictionary. I’m confused about the
location elements. The data dictionary lists the sub-elements of
Location as being:
-
LocationDescription
-
ExplicitAddress (with sub-elements
ExplicitAddressScheme & ExplicitAddressValue – both
strings)
-
TargetArea (with sub-elements
Circle, Polygon, Country, Subdivision, LocCodeUN – all
strings)
However, I was previously under
the impression that we were using a combination of CIQ addresses and the OASIS
GML profile? The CommonTypes schema lists the following as the
sub-elements of Location:
-
Description
-
CIQInformation (with sub-elements
Party and Address – probably only Address is needed in this
context)
-
geo-oasis:where (with sub-elements
Point, LineString, Polygon & Envelope)
Could somebody please clarify for
me the latest decision about these elements? In my opinion, if we are
using CIQ for addresses in the ContactInformation package, we should stick
with CIQ addresses for Location, for the sake of consistency. Also,
representing circles, polygons, etc. with strings does not seem like a good
solution. The alternative is to use the OASIS GML profile – however this
has errors in it and does not seem to have been updated for a while (does
anyone know what is happening with this?).
Thanks,
Karen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email and any attachments may be confidential. They may contain legally
privileged information or copyright material. You should not read, copy,
use or disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an intended
recipient, please contact us at once by return email and then delete both
messages. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus,
data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised
amendment. This notice should not be removed.
|
|