MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
















emergency message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]








Subject: RE: [emergency] Circle and Polygon




From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@intergraph.com>
To: 'Carl Reed OGC' <creed@opengeospatial.org>, "Ham, Gary A" <hamg@BATTELLE.ORG>, Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>, Emergency_Mgt_TC TC <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 11:02:55 -0500 






As long as the representation of ontological class models 
are not mixed into the presentational object models of the 
viewer systems, this is fine.  Otherwise, we build 
toolkits for graphics and an application per ML.  The 
economics of that are not good.  The lesson of the 
web infrastructure is to separate the presentation system 
from the content to improve the rendering and behavioral semantics 
of the presentation systems.  If GML and its profiles enable 
that, we should be able to pull and push the 
semantic information into and out of the database and 
to the thin or rich client presentation system JIT.

It is the implementation of the rendering systems that 
concerns me, so yes, we can take the offline.  I am 
concerned that the papers you referenced are inaccurate 
with regards to standard 3D systems widely and cheaply 
available.  It is bad design to mix 'thematic, attributes 
and interrelationships' into the rendering tool. LOD is 
supported in every version of VRML and now X3D since 
the min-nineties.

len


From: Carl Reed OGC [mailto:creed@opengeospatial.org]

Folks -

This discussion on GML is way beyond the needs and requirements for 
representing CIRCLE and POLYGON geometries in EDXL. I would suggest that Len

and I continue this dialogue "off-line".

Cheers

Carl