Tim-
I
wholeheartedly agree!
I
did bring this up for discussion earlier and we agreed that a circle
should be
<circle>lat’,’lon<space>radius</circle>
Which
makes comment 1 and the example wrong (extra space in both between the lat and
lon).
This
is on the issues list for 2.0. I will add the point about the radius,
because as stated it should be an unsigned integer with a maximum value
less than that of a normal signed or unsigned int.
Are
you suggesting that we use different wording for the OPTIONAL, MAY use
multiple? That was a little confusing to me at first, so input would be
appreciated.
I
have added these topics to the issues list
From: Gilmore, Timothy
[mailto:TIMOTHY.D.GILMORE@saic.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010
10:24 AM
To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:
[emergency] EDXL-DE 2.0 for the F2F - Objectivity, Subjectivity and
Interpretation.
All,
Some
of the things we look at are objectivity and subjectivity due to our
accreditation under the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation
(A2LA) for NIMS STEP and IPAWS Conformity Assessment (CA) testing. Many
elements under the OASIS EDXL suite of standards including CAP use words such
as “SHOULD” and “MAY” which are clearly subjective in nature. One of our
engineers pointed out some issues that we should keep in mind when going over
the EDXL-DE 2.0 document during the F2F.
For
CAP:
What
we're looking for are rules or constraints that are open to interpretation, or
not fully specified, rather than being completely "nailed
down."
For
example, consider the <circle> element. Is the following a
"correct" <circle> element?
<circle> 0, 0, 150000000 </circle>
It
certainly fits the descriptions in that element's comments: (1) it's in
the form "latitude, longitude, radius"; (2) the central point conforms to
WSG84; (3) the radius value is expressed in kilometers;
and
(4) it
is a properly escaped XML string.
Then
again, the radius of the circle is approximately the distance between the
Earth and the Sun. Note that the given definition includes the word
"geographic" (twice!) and that the center of the circle is specified as
longitude and latitude, all of which indicates to me that the circle ought be
to Earth-bound. Someone else may interpret the standard differently, and
the standard doesn't put a real limit on the radius of the
circle.
The
point is that the standard doesn't really specify enough for a tester to
determine whether or not a <circle> element is
conforming.
The
tester has to make up his (or her!) own rules to complete the
test.
Multiple
testers will certainly come to different conclusions, and all will be correct
to within the subjectivity allowed by the standard.
(And
that all said, note that the given example doesn't match the form given in
comment 1; the comma between the longitude and the radius is missing.
Since all of section 3 of this standard is normative, this is a bug in this
standard.)
For
another example, consider the <senderRole> element. The standard
says "OPTIONAL, MAY use multiple." Despite the words "OPTIONAL" and
"MAY," an individual tester can determine without a doubt whether a given
message contains zero or more <senderRole> elements, and an infinite
number of testers (all else being equal) will come to exactly the same
conclusion.
Perhaps
something to think about at the F2F.
Thanks,
Timothy
D. Gilmore |
SAIC
Sr.
Test Engineer | ILPSG | NIMS Support Center |
IPAWS
CA / NIMS STEP
phone:
606.274.2063 | fax: 606.274.2025
mobile:
606.219.7882 | email: gilmoret@us.saic.com
P Please
consider the environment before printing this email.