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


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Art Botterell [mailto:ABott@so.cccounty.us] 
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 23:26
> To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org; creed@opengeospatial.org
> 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.


I think that, in general, it is better to produce a flexible standard and
then profile it locally according to local requirements (as necessary) than
to produce an inflexible standard that can only be used in a smaller subset
of use cases or within a smaller community.

If we can make CAP support multiple CRSes with little additional effort and
little additional complexity, its adoption can be much broader, even if some
local implementations will be unable to fully communicate with other local
implementations.  In my view, this is a much better situation than having a
smaller number of implementations that understand each other perfectly, and
the rest of the world developing and using different and totally
incompatible standards.

If WGS 84 is considered the best option throughout the US, for example, it
is certainly possible for US government agencies to require the use of CAP
with WGS 84 whenever they issue an RFP, but the standard itself should not
have that limitation if it prevents broad adoption in other countries and
communities.

Alessandro

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>



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