[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] RE: EDXL-DE 2.0 for the F2F - Objectivity, Subjectivity and Interpretation.
Once I finish OGC meeting actions (from the meeting last week), should have a draft ready for review by the middle of July or so. Pretty straight forward to define using a GML profiling tool. Cheers Carl ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rex Brooks" <rexb@starbourne.com> To: "Hans Jespersen" <Hans.Jespersen@SolaceSystems.com> Cc: "McGarry, Donald P." <dmcgarry@mitre.org>; <creed@opengeospatial.org>; <TIMOTHY.D.GILMORE@saic.com>; <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 7:45 PM Subject: Re: [emergency] RE: EDXL-DE 2.0 for the F2F - Objectivity, Subjectivity and Interpretation. > HAVE and RM used a paper by Carl we published in our own document > repository as the reference. It was, in essence, an early version of the > OASIS Where Profile, which we should really push for over the summer even > if it is not usually a great time of year to get work done, but I think it > provides a certain advantage wrt OGC. What do think the chances are of > getting it out in late August, Carl? > > One thing we must do is sign off on the latest version and not put > ourselves in the position of asking for changes at the same time that > we're trying to push our own work forward. > > Cheers, > Rex > > Hans Jespersen wrote: >> I believe that we envisioned much more for OASIS Where than just >> GML-based Points and Polygons so this might just be a terminology >> mismatch. >> If all you expect to do by Wednesday is to put the same GML coordinate >> system used in RM into DE then we are fine. >> If you want to put more advanced concepts like multi-points, line >> segments, or indicating the order of accuracy for multiple ways of >> describing the same location then we are not yet there. >> >> -hans >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: McGarry, Donald P. [mailto:dmcgarry@mitre.org] Sent: Thursday, June >> 24, 2010 5:50 PM >> To: Hans Jespersen; 'rexb@starbourne.com'; 'creed@opengeospatial.org' >> Cc: 'TIMOTHY.D.GILMORE@saic.com'; 'emergency@lists.oasis-open.org' >> Subject: Re: [emergency] RE: EDXL-DE 2.0 for the F2F - Objectivity, >> Subjectivity and Interpretation. >> >> I was under the impression that the gml profile that was used in have >> and rm was geo oasis where... >> Don McGarry >> The MITRE Corp. >> dmcgarry@mitre.org >> (315) 838-2669 Office >> (703) 595-9375 Cell >> Sent via Blackberry >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Hans Jespersen <Hans.Jespersen@SolaceSystems.com> >> To: McGarry, Donald P.; rexb@starbourne.com <rexb@starbourne.com>; Carl >> Reed <creed@opengeospatial.org> >> Cc: Gilmore, Timothy <TIMOTHY.D.GILMORE@saic.com>; >> emergency@lists.oasis-open.org <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org> >> Sent: Thu Jun 24 20:48:27 2010 >> Subject: RE: [emergency] RE: EDXL-DE 2.0 for the F2F - Objectivity, >> Subjectivity and Interpretation. >> >> I agree but if we want a sample schema by next Wednesday for EDXL DE 2.0 >> I think we may be out of luck as the OASIS Where profile is not yet at >> the point of producing angle brackets. >> -hans >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: McGarry, Donald P. [mailto:dmcgarry@mitre.org] Sent: Thursday, June >> 24, 2010 10:06 AM >> To: rexb@starbourne.com; Carl Reed >> Cc: Gilmore, Timothy; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org >> Subject: RE: [emergency] RE: EDXL-DE 2.0 for the F2F - Objectivity, >> Subjectivity and Interpretation. >> >> So this is on the list. I was planning to advocate moving to our >> GeoOASIS where GML profile for targetarea geographic objects. >> >> -Don >> Office: 315-838-2669 >> Cell: 703-595-9375 >> dmcgarry@mitre.org >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com] Sent: Thursday, June 24, >> 2010 1:03 PM >> To: Carl Reed >> Cc: McGarry, Donald P.; Gilmore, Timothy; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org >> Subject: Re: [emergency] RE: EDXL-DE 2.0 for the F2F - Objectivity, >> Subjectivity and Interpretation. >> >> I concur. >> >> Cheers, >> Rex >> >> Carl Reed wrote: >> >>> Not to stir the pot, but if nay (minor) changes are made to the >>> definition of the circle element, would be nice to at least structure >>> the content to be consistent with the PIDF-LO definition so that CAP and >>> EDXL 2.0s are aligned with NENA Next Generation 911 specification of the >>> use the Location Object. >>> To whit: >>> >>> The circular area is used for coordinates in two-dimensional CRSs to >>> describe uncertainty about a point. The definition is based on the >>> one-dimensional geometry in GML, gml:CircleByCenterPoint. >>> >>> The centre point of a circular area shall be specified using a two >>> dimensional CRS; in three dimensions, the orientation of the circle >>> cannot be specified correctly using this representation. A point with >>> uncertainty that is specified in three dimensions SHOULD use the Sphere >>> shape type. >>> >>> <gs:Circle srsName="urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4326" >>> xmlns:gs="http://www.opengis.net/pidflo/1.0"; >>> xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml";> >>> <gml:pos> >>> 42.5463 -73.2512 >>> </gml:pos> >>> <gml:radius uom="urn:ogc:def:uom:EPSG::9001"> >>> 850.24 >>> </gml:radius> >>> </gs:Circle> >>> The only change I would recommend would be to use an http URI for the >>> CRS and uom definitions. Anyway, please note the lat-long order and the >>> use of white space. GML uses white space. >>> Also, FYI, this schema snippet for circle is almost identical to what >>> the schema will look like in the GML OASIS where document. >>> Cheers >>> Carl >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* McGarry, Donald P. <mailto:dmcgarry@mitre.org> >>> *To:* Gilmore, Timothy <mailto:TIMOTHY.D.GILMORE@saic.com> ; >>> emergency@lists.oasis-open.org >>> <mailto:emergency@lists.oasis-open.org> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 24, 2010 3:54 AM >>> *Subject:* [emergency] RE: EDXL-DE 2.0 for the F2F - Objectivity, >>> Subjectivity and Interpretation. >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> -Don >>> >>> Office: 315-838-2669 >>> >>> Cell: 703-595-9375 >>> >>> dmcgarry@mitre.org <mailto:dmcgarry@mitre.org> >>> >>> *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 >>> <mailto:gilmoret@us.saic.com> >>> >>> P Please consider the environment before printing this email. >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Rex Brooks >> President, CEO >> Starbourne Communications Design >> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison >> Berkeley, CA 94702 >> Tel: 510-898-0670 >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: >> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >> >> >> > > -- > Rex Brooks > President, CEO > Starbourne Communications Design > GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison > Berkeley, CA 94702 > Tel: 510-898-0670 > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]