GOOD!
Original Message-----
From: creed@opengeospatial.org [mailto:creed@opengeospatial.org]
Sent: October 5, 2006 7:13 AM
To: Ron Lake
Cc: creed@opengeospatial.org; Tim Grapes; Sukumar Dwarkanath;
Emergency_Mgt_Msg_SC
Subject: RE: [emergency] Re: [emergency-msg] Confirmed: Thurs. 10/5 @ 4:30
ET [emergency-msg] Date/Time final HAVE review
Yes, the recommendation from the GML WG was to have the profile use the
GML namespace.
Carl
> Using a namespace other than GML seems to me a mistake - it more or less
> eliminates the utility of GML software - is it GML?
>
> R
>
>
Original Message-----
> From: creed@opengeospatial.org [mailto:creed@opengeospatial.org]
> Sent: October 5, 2006 5:52 AM
> To: Tim Grapes
> Cc: 'Tim Grapes'; 'Sukumar Dwarkanath'; 'Emergency_Mgt_Msg_SC'
> Subject: [emergency] Re: [emergency-msg] Confirmed: Thurs. 10/5 @ 4:30 ET
> [emergency-msg] Date/Time final HAVE review
>
> I will be in a meeting all afternoon.
>
> However, an update on the GML profile for use in OASIS. We had a meeting
> of the GML Working Group at our OGC TC meetings and worked through the
> definition of a schema. More work is required. However, there was the
> question of how to specify the namespace. The OGC recommended way to to
> use the ogc/gml namespace. There are reasons for this. But, it is possible
> to decouple the GML schemas from the GML namespace if required. The
> downside of this latter approach is that applications that can ingest full
> GML will not recognize the GML payload being processed. This may not be an
> issue for a simple GML profile. The other question from the group was
> about where the schemas should reside. FYI, the OGC maintains a schema
> repository. This is more an issue of who will be responsible for the long
> term maintenance of the GML profile for OASIS.
>
> So, we need some guidance from this group. Perhaps this could be discussed
> a bit today.
>
> Thanks and regards
>
> Carl
>
>
>> All,
>>
>> Everyone's schedule is very tight, but the best alternative (for Sukumar
>> as
>> well) is Thursday, Oct. 5 (tomorrow) at 4:30 ET.
>>
>>
>>
>> The purpose is to give HAVE one final walk-through before submitting to
>> the
>> TC for public comment. We've discussed that we'll address Renato's
>> comments
>> where 'easy"; otherwise forward those comments into public comment along
>> with the draft and address them there.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1-800-320-4330
>>
>> 327547#
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>> _____
>>
>> From: Tim Grapes [mailto:tgrapes@evotecinc.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 1:28 PM
>> To: Sukumar Dwarkanath
>> Cc: Emergency_Mgt_Msg_SC
>> Subject: [emergency-msg] Date/Time final HAVE review
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Sukumar,
>>
>>
>>
>> I know schedules have been tough, but we want to try again to schedule
>> one
>> final HAVE review before submitting to TC vote and public comment. We'd
>> like to walk the spec end to end, deal with any easy ones on Renato's
>> comment list, and submit the remaining comments along with the draft
>> into
>> public comment.
>>
>>
>>
>> Everyone: Please respond about these proposed dates, and we'll schedule
>> based upon that.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) Thurs Oct. 5 4:30 ET
>>
>> 2) Fri Oct. 6 11:00 ET
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.12/461 - Release Date:
>> 10/2/2006
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.12/461 - Release Date:
>> 10/2/2006
>>
>>
>
>
>