OASIS Emergency Management TC

UNCLASSIFIED EM-TC & CAP Profiles SC members,   I was tasked with the following action item from the CAP Profiles SC meeting on Nov 23 rd :   ACTION ITEM 1123-05 : In addition to including a <parameter> element in the CAP-AU Profile to describe Circle and Polygon using Australia’s GDA94 coordinates, Greg will consider whether to also “Strongly Recommend” or “Require” that the CAPv1.2 <circle> and <polygon> values also be filled in with the equivalent WGS84 coordinates in order to provide interoperability outside Australia.   After considering all the dialog received on this topic through the kavi mailing lists and remaining cognisant of the fact that we want to be succinct where possible, I wish to propose the solution I have documented in the attached file, which comprises:   1) Inclusion of a GDA94 reference in the Normative References section of the CAP-AU Profile document (the WGS 84 reference is retained as well further down the list) 2) A statement in the header row of the <area> element explaining the GDA94 issue 3) An example for a circle location in the <area> section that includes GDA94 coordinates in a <parameter> sub-element (as recommended by Darrell O’Donnell) and corresponding WGS84 coordinates using the CAP <circle> sub-element (the coordinates are deliberately the same at present – I am still trying to locate a tool that can convert the WGS 84 coordinates that I extracted from Google Maps (-35.123,150.727) into GDA94)   Can interested members please confirm your agreement or disagreement with this proposal.       Greg Trott CAP-AU Project Manager Australian Government Attorney-General's Department   From: Trott, Gregory Sent: Tuesday, 22 November 2011 4:51 PM To: emergency-cap-profiles@lists.oasis-open.org; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Collated comments - WGS84 versus CRS issues for the CAP-AU Profile [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]   UNCLASSIFIED Thought you all might find the attached document handy for discussions scheduled at the Profiles SC call on Nov 23 rd  – it is a compilation of comments I have received in the last 24 hours addressing the WGS84 / GDA94 question I raised.   The yellow highlighted sections in the document point to issues that are of direct interest to Australia regarding the proposed content of the CAP-AU Profile document that is currently being developed in the CAP Profiles SC.   I will be participating in the Profiles SC call on Nov 23 rd but am not available to join the EM-TC call on Nov 22 nd .   Cheers Greg Trott CAP-AU Project Manager Australian Government Attorney-General's Department       If you have received this transmission in error please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the e-mail or attachments. Attachment: WGS 84 solution for CAP-AU Profile (GT).pdf Description: WGS 84 solution for CAP-AU Profile (GT).pdf

> 1) Inclusion of a GDA94 reference in the Normative References section of the CAP-AU Profile > document (the WGS 84 reference is retained as well further down the list) > 2) A statement in the header row of the <area> element explaining the GDA94 issue > 3) An example for a circle location in the <area> section that includes GDA94 coordinates in > a <parameter> sub-element (as recommended by Darrell O'Donnell) and corresponding WGS84 > coordinates using the CAP <circle> sub-element (the coordinates are deliberately the same at > present - I am still trying to locate a tool that can convert the WGS 84 coordinates that I > extracted from Google Maps (-35.123,150.727) into GDA94) The coordinates in WGS84 and GDA94 are the same for that level of precision. There is only a divergence when you get below 1 metre. Which leads to the question, is sub-metre accuracy necessary for public alerting? Since GDA94 was introduced to be more compatible with WGS84 than AGD was, can it not be considered, for the purposes of public alerting, to be equivalent? I would recommend dropping #3 from the above list as I think this will set a precedent where we could end up with a proliferation of ad hoc geospatial values, all with the intent of replacing those specified by the standard, leading to interoperability problems. This precedent would also mean that if someone didn't like the values in <severity> they could define their own parameter that would instead override it, and so on. There is an acknowledged need for other CRS's and CAP 2.0 will be addressing it. I don't think we should start creating divergent methods of expressing geospatial information that could be incompatible with 2.0 and result in interoperability issues between 1.2 systems. Would expanding on #1 and #2 as noted above to draw attention to the differences and provide a statement that in this profile they are considered to be equivalent or a substitution thereof be sufficient? -- Jacob Westfall <jake@jpw.biz>

> 1) Inclusion of a GDA94 reference in the Normative References section of the CAP-AU Profile > document (the WGS 84 reference is retained as well further down the list) > 2) A statement in the header row of the <area> element explaining the GDA94 issue > 3) An example for a circle location in the <area> section that includes GDA94 coordinates in > a <parameter> sub-element (as recommended by Darrell O'Donnell) and corresponding WGS84 > coordinates using the CAP <circle> sub-element (the coordinates are deliberately the same at > present - I am still trying to locate a tool that can convert the WGS 84 coordinates that I > extracted from Google Maps (-35.123,150.727) into GDA94) The coordinates in WGS84 and GDA94 are the same for that level of precision. There is only a divergence when you get below 1 metre. Which leads to the question, is sub-metre accuracy necessary for public alerting? Since GDA94 was introduced to be more compatible with WGS84 than AGD was, can it not be considered, for the purposes of public alerting, to be equivalent? I would recommend dropping #3 from the above list as I think this will set a precedent where we could end up with a proliferation of ad hoc geospatial values, all with the intent of replacing those specified by the standard, leading to interoperability problems. This precedent would also mean that if someone didn't like the values in <severity> they could define their own parameter that would instead override it, and so on. There is an acknowledged need for other CRS's and CAP 2.0 will be addressing it. I don't think we should start creating divergent methods of expressing geospatial information that could be incompatible with 2.0 and result in interoperability issues between 1.2 systems. Would expanding on #1 and #2 as noted above to draw attention to the differences and provide a statement that in this profile they are considered to be equivalent or a substitution thereof be sufficient? -- Jacob Westfall <jake@jpw.biz>

UNCLASSIFIED Proposal to amend WGS 84 text for insertion into the AREA header: Geographic locations in Australia SHOULD be referenced to the Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 (GDA94). The Intergovernmental Committee of Surveying and Mapping advises that for most practical applications, [GDA94] coordinates can be considered the same as [WGS 84]; therefore, CAP-AU accepts that for the practical purposes of public alerting, the coordinates derived from a [GDA94] reference system SHALL be considered to be equivalent to [WGS 84] coordinates that are required by CAP v1.2. Greg Trott
Original Message----- From: Jacob Westfall [ mailto:jake@jpw.biz ] Sent: Tuesday, 29 November 2011 8:09 PM To: Trott, Gregory Cc: emergency-cap-profiles@lists.oasis-open.org; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [emergency-cap-profiles] Proposed solution - WGS84 versus CRS issues for the CAP-AU Profile [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] > 1) Inclusion of a GDA94 reference in the Normative References section > of the CAP-AU Profile document (the WGS 84 reference is retained as > well further down the list) > 2) A statement in the header row of the <area> element explaining the > GDA94 issue > 3) An example for a circle location in the <area> section that > includes GDA94 coordinates in a <parameter> sub-element (as > recommended by Darrell O'Donnell) and corresponding WGS84 coordinates > using the CAP <circle> sub-element (the coordinates are deliberately > the same at present - I am still trying to locate a tool that can > convert the WGS 84 coordinates that I extracted from Google Maps > (-35.123,150.727) into GDA94) The coordinates in WGS84 and GDA94 are the same for that level of precision. There is only a divergence when you get below 1 metre. Which leads to the question, is sub-metre accuracy necessary for public alerting? Since GDA94 was introduced to be more compatible with WGS84 than AGD was, can it not be considered, for the purposes of public alerting, to be equivalent? I would recommend dropping #3 from the above list as I think this will set a precedent where we could end up with a proliferation of ad hoc geospatial values, all with the intent of replacing those specified by the standard, leading to interoperability problems. This precedent would also mean that if someone didn't like the values in <severity> they could define their own parameter that would instead override it, and so on. There is an acknowledged need for other CRS's and CAP 2.0 will be addressing it. I don't think we should start creating divergent methods of expressing geospatial information that could be incompatible with 2.0 and result in interoperability issues between 1.2 systems. Would expanding on #1 and #2 as noted above to draw attention to the differences and provide a statement that in this profile they are considered to be equivalent or a substitution thereof be sufficient? -- Jacob Westfall <jake@jpw.biz> ---------------------------------------------------- If you have received this transmission in error please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the e-mail or attachments.

> UNCLASSIFIED > Proposal to amend WGS 84 text for insertion into the AREA header: > > Geographic locations in Australia SHOULD be referenced to the Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 (GDA94). The Intergovernmental Committee of Surveying and Mapping advises that for most practical applications, [GDA94] coordinates can be considered the same as [WGS 84]; therefore, CAP-AU accepts that for the practical purposes of public alerting, the coordinates derived from a [GDA94] reference system SHALL be considered to be equivalent to [WGS 84] coordinates that are required by CAP v1.2. > Exactly what I had in mind, sounds good. -- Jacob Westfall <jake@jpw.biz>

We agreed to this wording in our meeting 11/30. Furthermore, the statement would be put into the non-normative section of the main document (section 1.5) rather than in the table. Elysa
Original Message----- From: emergency-cap-profiles@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:emergency-cap-profiles@lists.oasis-open.org ] On Behalf Of Trott, Gregory Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 3:25 PM To: emergency-cap-profiles@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [emergency-cap-profiles] RE: amended solution - WGS84 versus CRS issues for the CAP-AU Profile [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED Proposal to amend WGS 84 text for insertion into the AREA header: Geographic locations in Australia SHOULD be referenced to the Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 (GDA94). The Intergovernmental Committee of Surveying and Mapping advises that for most practical applications, [GDA94] coordinates can be considered the same as [WGS 84]; therefore, CAP-AU accepts that for the practical purposes of public alerting, the coordinates derived from a [GDA94] reference system SHALL be considered to be equivalent to [WGS 84] coordinates that are required by CAP v1.2. Greg Trott
Original Message----- From: Jacob Westfall [ mailto:jake@jpw.biz ] Sent: Tuesday, 29 November 2011 8:09 PM To: Trott, Gregory Cc: emergency-cap-profiles@lists.oasis-open.org; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [emergency-cap-profiles] Proposed solution - WGS84 versus CRS issues for the CAP-AU Profile [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] > 1) Inclusion of a GDA94 reference in the Normative References section > of the CAP-AU Profile document (the WGS 84 reference is retained as > well further down the list) > 2) A statement in the header row of the <area> element explaining the > GDA94 issue > 3) An example for a circle location in the <area> section that > includes GDA94 coordinates in a <parameter> sub-element (as > recommended by Darrell O'Donnell) and corresponding WGS84 coordinates > using the CAP <circle> sub-element (the coordinates are deliberately > the same at present - I am still trying to locate a tool that can > convert the WGS 84 coordinates that I extracted from Google Maps > (-35.123,150.727) into GDA94) The coordinates in WGS84 and GDA94 are the same for that level of precision. There is only a divergence when you get below 1 metre. Which leads to the question, is sub-metre accuracy necessary for public alerting? Since GDA94 was introduced to be more compatible with WGS84 than AGD was, can it not be considered, for the purposes of public alerting, to be equivalent? I would recommend dropping #3 from the above list as I think this will set a precedent where we could end up with a proliferation of ad hoc geospatial values, all with the intent of replacing those specified by the standard, leading to interoperability problems. This precedent would also mean that if someone didn't like the values in <severity> they could define their own parameter that would instead override it, and so on. There is an acknowledged need for other CRS's and CAP 2.0 will be addressing it. I don't think we should start creating divergent methods of expressing geospatial information that could be incompatible with 2.0 and result in interoperability issues between 1.2 systems. Would expanding on #1 and #2 as noted above to draw attention to the differences and provide a statement that in this profile they are considered to be equivalent or a substitution thereof be sufficient? -- Jacob Westfall <jake@jpw.biz> ---------------------------------------------------- If you have received this transmission in error please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the e-mail or attachments. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: emergency-cap-profiles-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: emergency-cap-profiles-help@lists.oasis-open.org

UNCLASSIFIED Elysa,   My expectation was that this paragraph would be inserted into the header of the AREA element and that a reference for the GDA94 would go in the Section 1.5     The reference should be stated as follows (this web link is the correct one.  The previous one I advised did not work):    [GDA94] Australian Government, Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994.                 http://www.ga.gov.au/earth-monitoring/geodesy/geodetic-datums/GDA.html             Greg Trott CAP-AU PM  
Original Message----- From: emergency-cap-profiles@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:emergency-cap-profiles@lists.oasis-open.org ] On Behalf Of Elysa Jones Sent: Friday, 2 December 2011 1:40 AM To: Trott, Gregory; emergency-cap-profiles@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [emergency-cap-profiles] RE: amended solution - WGS84 versus CRS issues for the CAP-AU Profile [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]   We agreed to this wording in our meeting 11/30.  Furthermore, the statement would be put into the non-normative section of the main document (section 1.5) rather than in the table.  Elysa  
Original Message----- From: emergency-cap-profiles@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:emergency-cap-profiles@lists.oasis-open.org ] On Behalf Of Trott, Gregory Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 3:25 PM To: emergency-cap-profiles@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [emergency-cap-profiles] RE: amended solution - WGS84 versus CRS issues for the CAP-AU Profile [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]   UNCLASSIFIED Proposal to amend WGS 84 text for insertion into the AREA header:   Geographic locations in Australia SHOULD be referenced to the Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 (GDA94).  The Intergovernmental Committee of Surveying and Mapping advises that for most practical applications, [GDA94] coordinates can be considered the same as [WGS 84]; therefore, CAP-AU accepts that for the practical purposes of public alerting, the coordinates derived from a [GDA94] reference system SHALL be considered to be equivalent to [WGS 84] coordinates that are required by CAP v1.2.     Greg Trott    
Original Message----- From: Jacob Westfall [ mailto:jake@jpw.biz ] Sent: Tuesday, 29 November 2011 8:09 PM To: Trott, Gregory Cc: emergency-cap-profiles@lists.oasis-open.org; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [emergency-cap-profiles] Proposed solution - WGS84 versus CRS issues for the CAP-AU Profile [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]   > 1) Inclusion of a GDA94 reference in the Normative References section > of the CAP-AU Profile document (the WGS 84 reference is retained as > well further down the list) > 2) A statement in the header row of the <area> element explaining the > GDA94 issue > 3) An example for a circle location in the <area> section that > includes GDA94 coordinates in a <parameter> sub-element (as > recommended by Darrell O'Donnell) and corresponding WGS84 coordinates > using the CAP <circle> sub-element (the coordinates are deliberately > the same at present - I am still trying to locate a tool that can > convert the WGS 84 coordinates that I extracted from Google Maps > (-35.123,150.727) into GDA94)   The coordinates in WGS84 and GDA94 are the same for that level of precision. There is only a divergence when you get below 1 metre.  Which leads to the question, is sub-metre accuracy necessary for public alerting?  Since GDA94 was introduced to be more compatible with WGS84 than AGD was, can it not be considered, for the purposes of public alerting, to be equivalent?   I would recommend dropping #3 from the above list as I think this will set a precedent where we could end up with a proliferation of ad hoc geospatial values, all with the intent of replacing those specified by the standard, leading to interoperability problems.  This precedent would also mean that if someone didn't like the values in <severity> they could define their own parameter that would instead override it, and so on.  There is an acknowledged need for other CRS's and CAP 2.0 will be addressing it.  I don't think we should start creating divergent methods of expressing geospatial information that could be incompatible with 2.0 and result in interoperability issues between 1.2 systems.   Would expanding on #1 and #2 as noted above to draw attention to the differences and provide a statement that in this profile they are considered to be equivalent or a substitution thereof be sufficient?   -- Jacob Westfall <jake@jpw.biz> ---------------------------------------------------- If you have received this transmission in error please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the e-mail or attachments.   --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: emergency-cap-profiles-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: emergency-cap-profiles-help@lists.oasis-open.org     --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: emergency-cap-profiles-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: emergency-cap-profiles-help@lists.oasis-open.org     If you have received this transmission in error please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the e-mail or attachments.