From: Carl Reed OGC
Account [mailto:creed@opengeospatial.org]
Sent: February 6, 2007 6:42 PM
To: Ham, Gary A;
emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [emergency] Re:
[emergency-msg] GML and Resource
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
polygon.
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 services.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February
06, 2007 2:26 PM
Subject: [emergency-msg]
GML and Resource
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:
1. LocationDescription: xsd:string
3. TargetArea: geo-oasis:where
My discussion will concern only number 3 on this list.
The schema shows the TargetArea element to be of
TargetAreaType from the types schema.
TargetAreaType should then be of type geo-oasis:WhereType.
This is consistent with our other Types so I plan to make
the Data dictionary entries consistent with the schema.
Question: How broad do we want our location to be?
An 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.
I originally 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.
Personal opinion: For resource, I would rather use Point.
Too many options already are making resource messages harder to deal
with.
Senior Research Scientist
Battelle Memorial Institute
"You would be surprised what you can accomplish when
you do not care who gets the credit." - Harry S. Truman