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] Fw: [emergency-msg] Confusion about RM locationelements

Thanks Carl,

You can join -msg. However, I understand limiting 
the number of lists to which one is subscribed, 
since it adds new potential sources of spam. 
Regardless, update appreciated ;-).

If you have any time to spare on Thursday, we 
would really appreciate it if you could join our 
telecon since we really want to get in synch for 
finishing up EDXL_RM. I managed to get out the 
first draft of the front sections and a current 
version of the model diagrams. Since Location is 
now packaged up by itself, that should simplify 
making any necessary changes, provided I got the 
rest of this gaggle of messages in good shape.


At 9:50 AM -0700 1/30/07, Carl Reed OGC Account wrote:
>Sorry, I cannot post to the -msg group so am reposting to the entire TC.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:creed@opengeospatial.org>Carl Reed OGC Account
>To: <mailto:Karen.Robinson@nicta.com.au>Karen 
>Robinson ; 
>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).
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:Karen.Robinson@nicta.com.au>Karen Robinson
>Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:59 PM
>Subject: [emergency-msg] Confusion about RM location elements
>Dear all,
>Im in the process of updating the RM message 
>schemas and examples, and checking consistency 
>with the latest version of the matrix and data 
>dictionary.  Im 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 
>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 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.

Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-849-2309

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