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:]
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 10:06 AM
To: ; Carl Reed
Cc: Gilmore, Timothy;
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 1:03 PM
To: Carl Reed
Cc: McGarry, Donald P.; Gilmore, Timothy;
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:>
> *To:* Gilmore, Timothy <mailto:> ;
>
> <mailto:>
> *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
>
> <mailto:>
>
> *From:* Gilmore, Timothy [mailto:]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 23, 2010 10:24 AM
> *To:*
> *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:
> <mailto:>
>
> 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
