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: Sample email to interested parties WRTgeoenhancements to CAP

Guess I'm not clear on how we could support multiple CRSs without creating a burden on consuming devices, some of them potentially quite thin.  Do you see a way, Carl (or anyone)? 

As for local mandates, in China or wherever: Participation in global standards is always voluntary.  If we start trying to be all things to everyone, seem like we risk winding up with specs so broad and floppy that they cease to be effective as standards at all.

This work involves more than just aggregating everyone's desires, I think.  Sometimes choices must be made.  We certainly want to solicit and respect everybody's input, but I'm not sure we can or should try to satisfy everyone in every regard.
- Art   
-----Original Message----- 
From: "Carl Reed OGC Account" <creed@opengeospatial.org> 
To:  <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org> 
To: Botterell, Art <ABott@so.cccounty.us> 
Sent: 11/26/2007 9:27:22 AM 
Subject: Re: [emergency]  RE: Sample email to interested parties WRT geoenhancements to CAP 
Art - 
Thanks for the detailed response. I have not read the entire thread yet, so  
others may have already responded. 
Anyway, I believe that the intent at this point is to capture the "whats".  
Every discussion we have had to date in the GIS SC has been more focused on  
the what and not the how. That said, I believe that in the GIS SC  
conversations there is an implicit assumption that a consistent approach to  
the how is preferable to a fragmented approach. There is also a belief that  
the how also needs to be consistent with the standards work being done in  
the IETF, NENA (for NG 911), and for ORCHESTRA (The European project). 
As to Coordinate Reference systems, the newest version of KML 2.2 that the  
OGC is working on will support multiple CRS and not just WGS 84? In this  
case, there is no requirement nor assumption that the client device needs to  
know or care about all possible CRS's. WGS 84 is still the default.  Also, I  
was recently in China. In China, all standards that deal with geospatial  
MUST support the new Chinese geoid. This requirement is mandated by law.  
Given that OASIS has a strong presence in China, I think we should listen to  
that requirement. 
Promises to be a good dialogue! 
Thanks again 
----- Original Message -----  
From: "Art Botterell" <ABott@so.cccounty.us> 
To: <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>; "Carl Reed OGC Account"  
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 10:20 AM 
Subject: [emergency] RE: Sample email to interested parties WRT  
geoenhancements to CAP 
> Friends - 
> We may want to think a bit more about the "what" before we dive too deeply  
> into the "how."  Experience has revealed some ambiguities in the semantics  
> of the existing CAP geospatial elements, and I think addressing those may  
> help us understand better exactly what sort of geospatial elements will  
> best meet the functional requirements. 
> One of those ambiguities has to do with whether the CAP Area element  
> describes the area directly affected by a hazard, the location of the  
> hazard itself, or the area to which information about the hazard should be  
> routed.  All three are legitimate topics, but they don't necessarily raise  
> the same requirements.  I'm not sure, for example, that there would be any  
> meaningful use of a line or point in describing an affected area or a  
> message-targeting area, while a hazard location might be a point and a  
> hazard in motion (see below) might be described as a line or an  
> unterminated vector. 
> The temporal dimension is another aspect I'm thinking we may not have  
> addressed fully.  Currently the only formal way to describe motion or  
> trends in CAP is by means of a set of Info blocks each with its own  
> <effective> and <expires> values... in effect, a set of "key frames" which  
> might or might not imply some continual transition between the described  
> states.  I notice that NWS has recently started adding motion vectors  
> (starting location, direction and rate) to its geospatial descriptions in  
> storm warnings. 
> And of course one of the long-standing requirements for CAP generally is  
> that it be easy to process on autonomous devices with various kinds and  
> degrees of connectivity.  That's why I have some anxiety about the idea of  
> supporting multiple coordinate systems... do we risk making it impractical  
> for lightweight devices to know about all the possible coordinate systems?  
> My mind is open on that, but I hope we'll keep in mind the differences  
> between the requirements for a full-blown GIS application and those for a  
> portable (e.g., wristwatch-sized) or embedded system. 
> - Art 
> Art Botterell, Manager 
> Community Warning System 
> Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff 
> 50 Glacier Drive 
> Martinez, California 94553 
> (925) 313-9603 
> fax (925) 646-1120 
>>>> "Carl Reed OGC Account" <creed@opengeospatial.org> 11/16/2007 11:44 AM  
>>>>  >>> 
> Hi All - 
> We would like to get this email out to all interested CAP parties so that  
> we can collect requirements and move forward. I originally sent this email  
> in September and only heard from Rex. Other feedback would be appreciated. 
> Thanks and regards 
> Carl 
> ----- Original Message -----  
> From: Carl Reed OGC Account 
> To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 8:24 AM 
> Subject: [emergency] RE: Sample email to interested parties WRT geo  
> enhancements to CAP 
> A bit tardy :-) 
> First stab at a letter to interested party to collect additional  
> requirements for geo enhancements to CAP and by extension to EDXL. 
> Cheers 
> Carl 
> Dear < > 
> CAP has now been widely implemented. As a result, we are beginning to  
> receive considerable feedback regarding implementation experience,  
> especially in the realm of requirements for enhanced capabilities to  
> express additional (and richer) geographic elements. Some suggestions have  
> been to allow additional coordinate reference systems in addition to  
> WGS-84, the ability to encode point, line, and route features, and the  
> ability to reference the output of a plume model have been suggested. 
> Therefore, in order to document a consistent set of requirements for  
> potential enhancement or extensions to CAP, we are seeking your input and  
> experience. Please note that we are not seeking input on how to change CAP  
> or to implement changes in CAP. We are instead seeking either use cases or  
> new requirements for using/encoding/referencing geospatial content in a  
> CAP message. 
> Thank you for your help and consideration. 
> Regards 
> Carl Reed (CTO, OGC) 
> OASIS Emergency Management TC GIS SC Chair. 
> Carl Reed, PhD 
> CTO and Executive Director Specification Program 
> OGC 
> The OGC: Helping the World to Communicate Geographically 
> --------------------- 
> This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of  
> addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged  
> information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying,  
> disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you  
> are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender  immediately by  
> return email and delete this communication and destroy all copies. 
> "The important thing is not to stop questioning." -- Albert Einstein 
> "Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature. Life is  
> either a daring adventure or nothing." -- Helen Keller 
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that 
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS 

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