Rudy,
I tend to agree and I think that's the point I was trying to make.
We're going to need to consider, over time, a more encompassing language
to describe these. ESML, SensorML, and GML are all key elements, but no
one markup, in itself, is sufficient. I hate to think in terms of
supersetting these markups, as we could well lose the ability to manage
their content, and then lose precision in description. However, I
suspect that such supersetting will provide the mechanism to extend
each, and eventually find a way to resolve to a more common theme.
Thanks for the pointer to the AQ work. I was actually looking for
something like this to support our TexAQS studies!
gerry
Rudolf Husar wrote:
Gerry,
The use of multiple 'languages' e.g. GML and SensorML seems to me the
only way to describe the different aspects of Earth Science monitoring
and data systems. This may be naive, but my question is not whether
but * how to use the combination* of these standard languages to
describe the entire elephant. Some early, thinking-fragments on this
topic, related to air quality is here.
http://capita.wustl.edu/capita/researchareas/GALEON/Reports/AQ_Pt_OGC.ppt
