> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eliot Christian [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 17:41
> To: Elysa Jones; Alessandro Triglia;
> Cc: Olivier DUBUISSON; John Larmouth; Carl Reed
> Subject: RE: [emergency] CAP 1.1 Standard and ITU-T Recommendation
>
> At 04:49 PM 4/26/2007, Elysa Jones wrote:
> >Hi Alessandro, Thanks so much for joining the fray, welcome.
> Please see the current list discussion Subject: CAP 1.1
> Standard and ITU-T Recommendation - TC Task 3 (ASN.1) where
> a lively discussion is underway.
>
> Olivier and John pointed out that I was not taking into
> account the ENCODING-CONTROL section at the end of the ASN.1
> module. This will assure that the values as actually
> transmitted are the same case as specified in the current standard.
Correct.
I have checked the ASN.1 in X.cap1, and I think it is correct and matches
the XML schema perfectly.
I have a few minor comments on the X.cap1 document. I will send them
tomorrow morning. (Is there a special format for sending comments to the
TC? If not, I will use something similar to the ISO/IEC JTC 1 comment
matrix.)
>
> With regard to the embedded explanatory text on data element
> semantics, I certainly agree that neither the XML Schema nor
> the ASN.1 Specification should be a primary source for this
> textual material. It should be carried primarily in the data
> dictionary under the heading "Notes or Value Domain", and the
> current standard mostly adheres to that practice. However,
> there there are a couple of notes pertaining to geographic
> matters that are not in the data dictionary per se, although
> they are in the standard. (Specifically, "coordinate pair" is
> defined in 1.5 Terminology; "WGS-84" is described in 3.3.1
> WGS-84 Note.) The ASN.1 embedded explanatory text can simply
> refer to those notes as well.
The ASN.1 spec (unlike the XML schema in CAP 1.1) contains many in-line
comments, which may lead to the expectation that those comments are intended
to be complete, but in fact they are not. They need to be revisited.
Alessandro
>
> My point about the "polygon coordinates winding order" is
> also not an issue for the ASN.1, as John noted. I would say
> it is also not an immediate issue for the standard as it sits
> at version 1.1. Perhaps the next version of the standard
> could simply note in the data dictionary entry for the
> polygon element: "the winding order of coordinates is
> counter-clockwise".
>
> Eliot
>
