Re: [emergency] RE: EDXL-DE 2.0 for the F2F - Objectivity, Subjectivity and Interpretation.

["Carl Reed" <creed@opengeospatial.org>]

Don -

Correct approach as these elements will not change in the new version.

Cheers

Carl

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "McGarry, Donald P." <dmcgarry@mitre.org>
To: <Hans.Jespersen@SolaceSystems.com>; <creed@opengeospatial.org>; 
<rexb@starbourne.com>
Cc: <TIMOTHY.D.GILMORE@saic.com>; <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: [emergency] RE: EDXL-DE 2.0 for the F2F - Objectivity, 
Subjectivity and Interpretation.


> Yeah I was thinking of the '06 version to at least address the issues with 
> point, polygon, and circle
> 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: Carl Reed <creed@opengeospatial.org>; McGarry, Donald P.; 
> rexb@starbourne.com <rexb@starbourne.com>
> Cc: TIMOTHY.D.GILMORE@saic.com <TIMOTHY.D.GILMORE@saic.com>; 
> emergency@lists.oasis-open.org <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Fri Jun 25 02:59:48 2010
> Subject: RE: [emergency] RE: EDXL-DE 2.0 for the F2F - Objectivity, 
> Subjectivity and Interpretation.
>
> I checked my documents as I didn't realize that the older version was
> also called OASIS Where (it just says OASIS GML Profile in the doc). It
> seems like we have an OASIS GML Profile circa 2006 and a forthcoming
> OASIS Where GML Profile circa 2010. It is the advanced features in the
> 2010 Where Profile that I was worried will not be finished in time to be
> put into next Wednesdays draft DE 2.0 Schema.
>
> -hans
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Reed [mailto:creed@opengeospatial.org]
> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 7:19 PM
> To: McGarry, Donald P.; Hans Jespersen; rexb@starbourne.com
> 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.
>
> Hans -
>
> Actually, there is. There is a slightly dated version that is referenced
> by
> CIQ and a couple of other OASIS standards. This schema will be the basis
> for
> the expanded version. The original where schema was defined and checked
> by
> OGC GML gurus. We will extend this schema to handle the additional
> geometry
> types as identified in the draft requirements document.
>
> Cheers
>
> Carl
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "McGarry, Donald P." <dmcgarry@mitre.org>
> To: <Hans.Jespersen@SolaceSystems.com>; <rexb@starbourne.com>;
> <creed@opengeospatial.org>
> Cc: <TIMOTHY.D.GILMORE@saic.com>; <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 6:50 PM
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>