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: [OASIS Issue Tracker] (EMERGENCY-15) Support GML for geospatial values

    [ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/EMERGENCY-15?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=48549#comment-48549 ] 

Steve Hakusa commented on EMERGENCY-15:

From https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency-cap/download.php/53827/Aug11-2014-meeting-notes.doc

Eliot elaborated on his comment that GeoRSS simple was more appropriate than GML in order to support wider interoperability with news feeds and ease of implementation.  Rex Brooks mentioned that the EM-TC had already created a GML simple features profile to use in all EDXL standards.  Jacob raised the concern regarding the need to outline what the needs and benefits would be for CAP users by implementing GML.  Eliot, Norm Paulsen, and Jacob discussed coordinate reference systems and whether support is needed for anything other than WGS-84.  It was agreed by the group that CAP should be limited to a single CRS only for interoperability reasons.  Jacob suggested that there should be a comparison made between the EDXL GML profile and GeoRSS in order to determine how best to proceed.  The SC moved onto the next issue, leaving as an action for Jacob to attach the EDXL GML profile information to this ticket for further review

> Support GML for geospatial values
> ---------------------------------
>                 Key: EMERGENCY-15
>                 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/EMERGENCY-15
>             Project: OASIS Emergency Management TC
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: CAP 
>            Reporter: Tony Mancuso
> Jacob Westfall; Geospatial values: I've heard a number of comments from others regarding CAP's geospatial values and I'm passing them on to the comments list. Better compatibility with GML is the most often heard comment.  The geo types of polygon and circle are suitable for the task of describing areas but their formatting, primarily circle, has caused questions and problems with transformations to/from GML.  Also the idea of a box in addition to a polygon has been raised.  The issue of CRSs has been raised but most of the comments were to keep it simple and stick to 4326. Perhaps the next version of CAP should address the issue of compatibility with GML, by including a simple GML profile to use and/or formatting the current geo types to allow for better transformation.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

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