Gerry et al.
I don't mean to be flip, but the thought of "supersetting" GML is pretty
intimidating to me. Most groups are trying to 'rassle GML down to
manageable size by defining application "profiles" (CSML, ncML-GML) which,
to me, are more like subsets for targetted user bases.
-- Ben
On 2/28/06, Gerry Creager N5JXS <gerry.creager@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
