On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 17:28, Carl Reed wrote:
> The topic of symbology may be an opportunity for the EM TC and the OGC to
> collaborate. Our membership has done considerable work in the "how" of
> interoperability for encoding and communicating symbology. We do not deal
> with the actual definitions (content) for symbols. Symbology definition is
> better done by groups such as USGS, FEMA, NIMA, APWA, and so forth.
I agree - this is a good place to collaborate. I actually have been
exchanging emails with Scott McAfee at DHS, whom Bill S (ESRI) has been
communicating with as well. Scott had mentioned that he was working with
you guys on this.
>From an EM TC perspective, I think the proper approach would be for the
GIS SC to formally take on this effort - "effort" being defined as
summarizing the areas of collaboration and vision, so that the greater
EM TC can understand the overall purpose. Is that something you can
initiate with Bill and Eliot? Or maybe, we just did that :)
Any thoughts on how best to proceed would be appreciated.
> For example, we have an OpenGIS specification called "Style Layer
> Descriptor" (SLD). SLD - using XML Schema - provides a mechanism for
> expressing symbology portrayal rules to an application client or to a
> server. The reason our members defined and adopted SLD as a specification is
> that when a user is requesting spatial data from multiple servers, how can
> the user be assured that they will see the spatial data rendered in a common
> consistent manner using symbology that they are used to?
>
> We are also working on various other aspects related to interoperability and
> symbology, such as symbology metadata and how to build, maintain, and access
> a library of symbol libraries.
>
> The SLD specification can be found on the public portion of our web site
> (www.opengis.org).
Ok, so I think you might have answered my initial question of where to
start here. This certainly sounds like a VERY exciting and applicable
area of interest, although I would defer to the experts on if it is the
only area (I assume not) for the EM TC.
That being said, I have cross posted this with the EMIF SC, because this
certainly spans the topic of the greater EM infrastructure. I think the
question to the EMIF that stimulates the potential answer you have
provided is, "with the presence of an agreed upon symbologize standard,
what is the best way to exchange data that includes those symbols that
maintains the intent of the originating source?" If SLD is potentially
an answer to that question, which is sounds like it is, then the next
step would be to work with the EMIF to make sure it found its
appropriate home in their specs.
This is only my personal initial thought based on what you have
provided. I will defer to Rick and his group to determine/evaluate if
SLD is part of their picture, and to the GIS SC to probe you for
additional areas of collaboration. In the meantime, if you have any
other ideas, thoughts, or recommendations, we certainly welcome the
insight.
Allen
> I look forward to exploring this potential area of collaboration.
>
> Regards
>
> Carl Reed
> OGC
>
>