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: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 10:07:51 -0500 






What do we do with 3D maps?  What do we do with SVG?

I agree that geometry should be independent of other 
entities, but GML is by no means a dominant industry 
standard for mapping.  ESRI is.

len


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

I would encourage us to look toward compatibility with the OGC GML standard.

Not that I have a bias :-) But, having recently dug around a bit, GML 
geometry constructs for point, circle, and polygon are also used in a 
variety of other standards, such as the Mobile Location Platform API, 
PIDF-LO, and TransducerML (sensor alerts). The reason I mention this is that

it is quite conceivable that an alert message that will eventually get 
encapsulated into EDXL (or CAP!) will come from an environment that  uses 
one of these other standards. FYI, MLP is the Gateway protocol that many 
carriers use as part of their location positioning infrastructure. 
Harmonization across standards of how geometry is expressed greatly eases 
implementation pain.

That said, I would like to have the GML gurus in the OGC take a look at the 
circle/polygon constructs in EDXL and provide feedback. I can have this done

as part of our Technical Committee F2F next week.

Regards

Carl






Follow-Ups:

Re: [emergency] Circle and Polygon
From: "Carl Reed OGC" <creed@opengeospatial.org>








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

--

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