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] Re: [emergency-msg] GML and Resource

It is likely also useful to start thinking (futures) about adoption of the GML feature model since this will give you “more bang for your buck” in terms of the ability to use GML aware software, WFS etc.



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


Gary -


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 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 -----

From: Ham, Gary A

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

2. Address: ciq:xal

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.

So far, no problem.


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.   


I need a consensus.





Gary A. Ham

Senior Research Scientist

Battelle Memorial Institute

540-288-5611 (office)

703-869-6241 (cell)

"You would be surprised what you can accomplish when you do not care who gets the credit." - Harry S. Truman


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