Don -
Correct approach as these elements will not change in the new version.
Cheers
Carl
----- Original Message -----
From: "McGarry, Donald P." <>
To: <>; <>;
<>
Cc: <>; <>
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.
>
> (315) 838-2669 Office
> (703) 595-9375 Cell
> Sent via Blackberry
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hans Jespersen <>
> To: Carl Reed <>; McGarry, Donald P.;
> <>
> Cc: <>;
> <>
> 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:]
> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 7:19 PM
> To: McGarry, Donald P.; Hans Jespersen;
> Cc: ;
> 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." <>
> To: <>; <>;
> <>
> Cc: <>; <>
> 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.
>>
>> (315) 838-2669 Office
>> (703) 595-9375 Cell
>> Sent via Blackberry
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Hans Jespersen <>
>> To: McGarry, Donald P.; <>;
> Carl
>> Reed <>
>> Cc: Gilmore, Timothy <>;
>> <>
>> 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:]
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
