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] CAP in Taiwan

Jamie Clark, OASIS Staff Attorney can weigh in on the question posed below.

Elysa Jones, Chair OASIS
Emergency Management Technical Committee
Emergency Interoperability Member Section

-----Original Message-----
From: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:emergency@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Art Botterell
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 6:59 PM
To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [emergency] CAP in Taiwan

Thanks for catching that, Carl. I do hope they get in touch as they've clearly gotten some bad information.  Profiles, as we all understand by now, can be more restrictive than the basic CAP standard but cannot add or change features (except, of course, through the provided extension points of <parameter> and <resource>.)

In any event, if they have any interest in maintaining interoperability with their customers and allies they'd do better to transform the global-standard WGS-84 representation in CAP to and from their local CRS on the input and output user interfaces rather than to deviate from the standard.

Obviously we don't know all the background here, but the perceived "need" to use some other CRS is generally rooted in a lack of information about how CRSs and projections work.  My worst fear would be that this ill-advised approach might be driven by a vendor who hopes to lock them to uncompetitive products by tricking them into to adopting a non-standard format that's misrepresented as "CAP."

Which raises an interesting tangential question: What's the OASIS position on non-compliant implementations of OASIS standards?  In the long run such investments are their own penalty, of course, but if the standard is misrepresented somewhere does OASIS feel it has any stake in that, adoption-wise?  Anyone know?

- Art

> On Nov 23, 2014, at 16:04, Carl Reed <creed@opengeospatial.org> wrote:
> Dear TC -
> Last week I had the opportunity to visit the Taiwan National Science and Technology Center for Disaster Reduction (NCDR). They provided a presentation on 2015 development plans. They are looking to integrate the use of CAP into their alerting infrastructure. They have developed a Taiwan profile for CAP – partly driven by the need to support additional coordinate reference systems (CRS) beyond WGS 84. I suggested that they join the OASIS discussion on the current CAP revision requirements and thoughts. Some in the Government also want to use CAP for messaging applications beyond alerting. I suggested that would probably not be a good idea given the original requirements and use cases for CAP.
> Cheers
> Carl Reed, PhD
> CTO and Executive Director Standards Program Open Geospatial 
> Consortium www.opengeospatial.org
> The OGC: Making Location Count!
> ---------------------
> This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete this communication and destroy all copies.
> "The important thing is not to stop questioning." -- Albert Einstein 
> "Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature. Life 
> is either a daring adventure or nothing." -- Helen Keller

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:

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