Am out of the office for a couple of days.
But, as Karen suggests, if we do not put in extra geometry types beyond
points, before we know it, implementers will be asking for an envelope or a
FYI, thanks to the IETF folks, we have access to GML schema for ellipses
and a couple of other geometry types that are quite useful in emergency
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:26
Subject: [emergency-msg] GML and
I am trying to write the Data Dictionary reference
for our implementation of GML using geo-oasis.
In our structure
we have a "Location Type" consisting of three elements:
will concern only number 3 on this list.
The schema shows
the TargetArea element to be of TargetAreaType from the types
TargetAreaType should then be of type
This is consistent
with our other Types so I plan to make the Data dictionary entries consistent
with the schema.
So far, no
broad do we want our location to be?
geo-oasis:whereType gives a choice of
Did we mean to
have Location have the option of all of these elements?
Or should I make
TargetAreaType a restriction on WhereType that limits the choices to one or
more of the options.
thought that Point would be simple and appropriate for resource messages (the
larger scope is certainly needed for future updates to DE and CAP). But the
name as TargetArea makes me think the larger scope was intended by the
committee for resource messaging as well.
For resource, I would rather use Point. Too many options already are making
resource messages harder to deal with.
I need a
Gary A. Ham
"You would be surprised
what you can accomplish when you do not care who gets the credit." - Harry S.