OASIS Emergency Management TC

 View Only

RE: [emergency] Re: Circle and Polygon

  • 1.  RE: [emergency] Re: Circle and Polygon

    Posted 06-16-2005 14:13
     MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    emergency message

    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


    Subject: RE: [emergency] Re: Circle and Polygon


    Offhand, I would say that including validation checks as a mandatory 
    item in RFPs also makes sense to me. Assuming that good practices 
    will be followed sounds like a train wreck waiting to happen. Making 
    demonstrable, and accurate interoperability with a given set of CRS 
    might give a few vendors heartburn, and make some project managers 
    grumble, but, while it isn't trivial by any means, it aint QUITE 
    rocket science or brain surgery. It may be just a bit more important 
    at the time of response coordination, though.
    
    Ciao,
    Rex
    
    At 8:43 AM -0500 6/16/05, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
    >Automated emergency systems that 'forget' that
    >there is a different geo-referencing system in
    >use by an allied system?  It's hard to make
    >a computer forget; it's easy to make it not notice.
    >
    >Software is more likely to not notice a data error
    >if its designers assume one system holds for all
    >applications rather than building in validation checks.
    >
    >"Without the spatial reference system pointer, we will not be able
    >to work across jurisdictional boundaries who use different coordinate
    >systems, or with many legacy data sources."
    >
    >Interoperability is a transient state of information
    >ecosystems.  Reliable partners manage transitions
    >equitably.
    >
    >len
    >
    >
    >From: Ham, Gary A [mailto:hamg@BATTELLE.ORG]
    >
    >I can state for the record that he military is at least expiimenting
    >with CAP.  It is part of several ongoing trials in this year's Coalition
    >Waarefare Interoperability Demonstration (CWID) going on this very week.
    >
    >
    >From: David Danko [mailto:DDanko@esri.com]
    >
    >I didn't mean to imply that NATO C2 would be using CAP. I just meant
    >that the military - having probably the most experience passing
    >coordinates around - has learned that using one CRS works the best for
    >passing coordinates. Although developed by the military - it's heavily
    >used outside the military. The International Civil Aviation Organization
    >(ICAO) has settled on WGS 84 for air navigation systems see
    >www.WGS84.com and it's the CRS used by GPS.
    >http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=WGS%2084
    >
    >I have seen it happen many times where people "forgot" or didn't realize
    >their information was in a different reference system. I was just
    >looking at this as a communication issue. In an emergency situation one
    >may not have the time to realize there is a miscommunication and go back
    >and fix it.
    >
    >I agree we need to get the opinions of users - we should also include
    >some geodesist. I certainly don't know all the uses for CAP. It may very
    >well be used for high precision positioning where a local system may
    >work the best - we'll have to see what the users want.
    >
    >Dave
    >
    >
    >David M. Danko
    >GIS Standards
    >Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.
    >8620 Westwood Center Drive
    >Vienna, VA 22182-2214
    >USA
    >E-mail: ddanko@esri.com
    >Tel: 703-506-9515 x 8011
    >Mobile: 703-989-1863
    >Fax: 703-506 9514
    >