Once I finish OGC meeting actions (from the meeting last week), should have
a draft ready for review by the middle of July or so. Pretty straight
forward to define using a GML profiling tool.
Cheers
Carl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rex Brooks" <>
To: "Hans Jespersen" <>
Cc: "McGarry, Donald P." <>; <>;
<>; <>
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: [emergency] RE: EDXL-DE 2.0 for the F2F - Objectivity,
Subjectivity and Interpretation.
> HAVE and RM used a paper by Carl we published in our own document
> repository as the reference. It was, in essence, an early version of the
> OASIS Where Profile, which we should really push for over the summer even
> if it is not usually a great time of year to get work done, but I think it
> provides a certain advantage wrt OGC. What do think the chances are of
> getting it out in late August, Carl?
>
> One thing we must do is sign off on the latest version and not put
> ourselves in the position of asking for changes at the same time that
> we're trying to push our own work forward.
>
> Cheers,
> Rex
>
> Hans Jespersen wrote:
>> I believe that we envisioned much more for OASIS Where than just
>> GML-based Points and Polygons so this might just be a terminology
>> mismatch.
>> If all you expect to do by Wednesday is to put the same GML coordinate
>> system used in RM into DE then we are fine.
>> If you want to put more advanced concepts like multi-points, line
>> segments, or indicating the order of accuracy for multiple ways of
>> describing the same location then we are not yet there.
>>
>> -hans
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: McGarry, Donald P. [mailto:] Sent: Thursday, June
>> 24, 2010 5:50 PM
>> To: Hans Jespersen; ''; ''
>> Cc: ''; ''
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Rex Brooks
> President, CEO
> Starbourne Communications Design
> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
> Berkeley, CA 94702
> Tel: 510-898-0670
>
>
